СARD 1
Grammar as a branch of linguistics. What does grammar study? Branches of grammar.
What does morphology study? What does syntax study? Language as the system consisting
of subsystems \ levels. The phonological subsystem \ level. The morphological subsystem \
level. The lexical subsystem \ level. The syntactical subsystem \ level. Basic units of the
language, their definitions, characteristic features and basic functions. The phoneme. The
morpheme. The word \ lexeme. The phraseme. The syntagmeme \ the sentence. The text.
Grammar is a branch of linguistics which studies language forms and their meanings.
Traditionally there are distinguished two subdivisions of grammar as a branch of knowledge:
morphology and syntax. Morphology studies forms of words and what meanings are expressed
by word forms. Syntax studies forms of phrases and sentences and what meanings are expressed
by their different patterns.
The term grammar comes from the Greek word grammatike, which, in its turn, comes from the
Greek word gramma, meaning a letter (буква).
It is traditional to regard language a system consisting of subsystems. Each subsystem is
composed of this or that set of language units.
The following subsystems are distinguished:
1) the phonological \ phonemic subsystem
2) the morphological \ morphemic subsystem
3) the lexical \ lexemic subsystem
4) the phrasemic \ syntagmemic subsystem
5) the syntactical \ proposemic subsystem.
The phonological \ phonemic subsystem consists of PHONEMES. The phoneme is the smallest
DISTINCTIVE language unit.
The morphological \ morphemic subsystem consists of MORPHEMES. The morpheme is the
smallest MEANINGFUL language unit.
The lexical \ lexemic subsystem consists of WORDS \ LEXEMES. The word is the smallest
NAMING unit. М.Y. Blokh defines the function of words as MONONOMINATION.
The phrasemic \ syntagmemic subsystem consists of PHRASES.
Not all grammarians include phrases into the list of the basic units of the language. М.Y. Blokh
defines the function of words as POLYNOMINATION. It means that a phrase denotes a
COMBINATION of two or more entities.
For example:
1) a clever student: the object and its quality are denoted
2) to run quickly: the process and its quality are denoted
3) to buy a car: the process and its object are denoted.
The syntactical \ proposemic subsystem includes SENTENCES, their patterns. The sentence is
the smallest COMMUNICATIVE language unit. It means that the elementary communication is
done with the help of a sentence. Even if we give a one-word answer, we produce a sentence.
For example:
- Who did it?
- Henry.
The TEXT is the language of the UPPER language unit.
CARD 2
The morpheme as the smallest meaningful unit of the language. The prefix, infix, suffix,
ending. The root. The lexical, grammatical, lexico-grammatical morphemes. The formbuilding (=grammatical) and word-building (=derivational = lexical and lexicogrammatical) morphemes. The overt and covert morphemes. The additive and replacive
morphemes. The bound and free grammatical morphemes. The continuous and
discontinuous morphemes. The segmental and suprasegmental morphemes.
MORPHEME is the smallest MEANINGFUL unit of the language. In other words, morphemes
are the smallest meaningful segments of WORDS. It means that a word can be divided into
MORPHEMES.
Morphemes can be divided into PHONEMES. Phonemes do NOT express any meaning. That’s
why morphemes are LINGUISTIC SIGNS and phonemes are NOT linguistic signs. Morphemes
can be classified in different ways. The first classification is positional. In this case, the
morphemes are classified according to the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the
central one, the lexical morpheme, which is called the root. The marginal morphemes are called
affixes, which are divided into prefixes, infixes and suffixes. The root is the same as the lexical
morpheme (see further). It expresses the concrete, “material” part of the meaning of the word.
Affixes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word. The specifications are of
lexico-semantic (they are word-building morphemes and express both lexical and grammatical
meanings) and grammatico semantic character (they are form-building morphemes and express
both only grammatical meanings). Prefixes and lexical (they are also called lexico-grammatical)
suffixes have word-building functions: together with the root they form the stem (ocнова) of the
word. Grammatical suffixes are also called inflexions (флексия) or endings (окончание). They
express different morphological categories. The root is obligatory for any word. Affixes are not
obligatory.
The marginal morphemes are called affixes, which are divided into prefixes,
infixes and suffixes. Prefixes precede the root, for example: undo, unpleasant,
discharge, submission, misprint, rewrite. Suffixes follow the root: teacher, artist,
shorter, sweetest, darken, neatness, childless. Infixes are represented by the vowel
interchange inside the root: blood [ʌ] > bleed [i:], goose [u:] > geese [i:], man [æ]
> men [e].
The next classification is according the meaning.
Morphemes express the following types of MEANING:
1) the LEXICAL meaning (this meaning is expressed by ROOTS)
2) the GRAMMATICAL meaning (this kind of meaning is expressed by:
-a) ENDINGS \ INFLECTIONS
For example, the following noun’s endings express the meaning of PLURALITY:
- [s] cats
- [z] dogs, windows, bees
- [iz] judges, houses, foxes, eye-lashes
- [i:] antennae, formulae
- [ai] cacti, fungi
- [ә] phenomena, data, criteria
b) DISCONTINUOUS morphemes
- {BE…EN} expresses the meaning of the PASSIVE voice
- {BE…ING} expresses the meaning of the CONTINUOUS aspect
- {HAVE…EN} expresses the meaning of the PERFECT aspect
3) LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL meaning (this kind of meaning is expressed by:
-prefixes
-infixes
- suffixes)
According to the expressed MEANING morphemes are divided into:
1) LEXICAL morphemes (ROOTS)
2) GRAMMATICAL morphemes:
- endings \ inflections
- discontinuous morphemes
3) LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL morphemes:
-prefixes
-infixes
-suffixes
GRAMMATICAL morphemes are added to the STEM of the word. This addition does NOT
produce a new word. It produces a new form of THE SAME word.
LEXICAL morphemes (ROOTS) can also be added to each other.
This addition produces COMPOUND words:
- blackboard
- blackmail
- proofread
- whitewash
- snow-white
According to morphemes’ function and meaning, affixes are divided into derivational (wordbuilding affixes) and functional (form-building affixes). Functional affixes are also called
endings, inflexions, or outer formatives.
On the basis of formal presentation, “overt” (явный) and “covert” (скрытый) morphemes are
distinguished. Overt morphemes are explicit. Covert morphemes are identified in contrasts, or
oppositions. They are found in word forms which have no ending but which are capable of
taking endings in other forms with other grammatical meaning.
On the basis of grammatical alternation, “additive” and “replacive” morphemes are
distinguished. Additive morphemes are outer grammatical suffixes. They are added to the stem:
look+ed; small+er.
Some forms are built up through the interchange of the root phoneme: drive– drove; man – men.
These root phonemes are considered as replacive morphemes, because they replace one another
in the paradigmatic forms.
In English, there are two main types of morphemes: free and bound. Free morphemes are
morphemes that can stand by themselves as single words. Bound morphemes are
morphemes that must be attached to another form and cannot stand alone. Bound morphemes
include all types of affixes: prefixes and suffixes.
Examples of free morphemes
Dress, wear, phone, read, berry, fix, free, dog, bake, cause, thought, cross
Examples of bound morphemes
Prefixes: pre-,re-,non-,un-,be-,anti-,ex-,miss-,de-,dis-,a-,comSuffixes: -s,-ed,-or,-er,-ist,-less,-ful,-ly,-y,-ing,-en,-ance
On the basis of linear characteristics, “continuous” and “discontinuous” morphemes are
distinguished. Continuous morphemes are uninterruptedly expressed, e.g. tables, oxen, reading.
They are parts of synthetic word-forms. Discontinuous morphemes are identified in analytical
forms. They are two-element grammatical units. Their symbols are: {be … ing} for the
continuous verb forms; {be … en} for the passive verb forms; {have …en} for the perfect verb
forms.. E.g.: is going, are promised; was taken; have broken, had talked. The stem appears to be
“between” the two components of a discontinuous morpheme, so the stem interrupts the
grammatical morpheme and it becomes discontinuous (interrupted).
The next basis for the classifcation of the morphemes is their formal presentation as segmental
or supra-segmental. Initially, morphemes were considered to be only segmental, i.e. meaningful
linear segments of words. In the 20th century American descriptivists introduced the concept of
the supra-segmental morpheme. In this case they are not linear segments of words. Such
morphemes are intonation contours, accents (stresses), pauses. They are not segmental because
they form the secondary line of speech, accompanying the primary phonemic line.
Why are intonation contours, accents (stresses), pauses given the morphemic status? Because,
just like segmental morphemes, they bear their particular meanings. For example, adding –er to
swim we produce a new word with a new lexical and grammatical (part-of-speech) meaning. In
the same way, changing the position of stress in the word `export (n) (ex`port, v) we also
produce a new word with a new lexical and grammatical (part-of-speech) meaning.
CARD 3
The morph. The morpheme as a class of morphs. Morphs characterized by the contrastive
distribution. Morphs (= free alternants) characterized by the non-contrastive distribution.
Morphs (= allomorphs) characterized by the complementary distribution.
In the 20th century American descriptive linguists put forward the notion of the MORPH. Like
the morpheme, the MORPH is the smallest meaningful component of a word.
The traditional definition of the MORPHEME is that the morpheme is the smallest meaningful
language unit.
In the grammatical theory which distinguishes MORPHEMES and MORPHS the morpheme.
What is the difference between the morpheme and the morph?
The fact is that there are cases when different sequences of phonemes inside a word express the
same meaning. So, must we consider such parts of words different morphemes?
For example, let us compare the words:
- please [`pli:z] - pleasant [`pleznt] - pleasure [`pleʒә].
The root morphemes of these words sound different:
- [`pli:z] - [`plez] - [`pleʒ].
Should we consider these phonemic chains to be different morphemes? No, we should not,
because these phonemic chains express THE SAME lexical MEANING. [`pli:z], [`plez] и [`pleʒ]
– are the variants of the same root morpheme. Such variants are called ALLOMORPHS.
Allomorphs are such variants of a morpheme which:
1) express the same meaning;
2) have different form;
3) are characterized by COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION, that is they cannot replace each
other in the same environment.
More examples of root allomorphs:
- [t∫aild] ‘child’ and [t∫ild] in ‘children’
- [naif] ‘knife’ and [naiv] in ‘knives’.
If [t∫aild] \ [t∫ild] and [naif] \ [naiv] are DIFFERENT morphemes, then: - ‘child’ and ‘children’
are different words;
- ‘knife’ and ‘knives’ are different words.
If [t∫aild] \ [t∫ild] and [naif] \ [naiv] represent THE SAME morpheme, then: - ‘child’ and
‘children’ are different forms of THE SAME word;
- ‘knife’ and ‘knives’ are different forms of THE SAME word.
Answer: - ‘child’ and ‘children’ are different forms of THE SAME word;
- ‘knife’ and ‘knives’ are different forms of THE SAME word – BECAUSE THEY EXPRESS
THE SAME LEXICAL MEANING.
These forms have the same root but this root is represented by different sequences \ chains of
phonemes: - [t∫aild] :: [t∫ild] - [naif] :: [naiv]).
Such sequences \ chains of phonemes which are parts of words and express meanings are called
MORPHS.
Sequences \ chains of phonemes within words WITH NO MEANING are not morphs.
We can give an example of allomorphs representing a GRAMMATICAL morpheme (=inflexion,
ending):
- [z] (dogs, pencils, bees)
- [s] (cats, maps, ducks)
- [iz] (matches, judges, houses, foxes)
The endings have DIFFERENT FORMS (they are represented by different phonemes), but they
express THE SAME MEANING – the meaning of the PLURAL number.
These endings CANNOT replace each other in the environment of each other: this feature is
called COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION.
That is why these endings are considered ALLOMORPHS of the same morpheme.
If the variants of a morpheme express the same meaning, have different forms, but CAN replace
each other in the same environment, they are FREE ALTERNANTS.
They are characterized by NON-CONTRASTIVE DISTRIBUTION. For example, the morphs
/d/ and /t/ in the forms ‘burned’ and ‘burnt’, ‘learned’ and ‘learnt’ CAN replace each other in the
same environment and the meaning is not changed.
CONTRASTIVE DISTRIBUTION characterizes morphs representing DIFFERENT morphemes.
Let us take the phonemic sequences ‘ly’ and ’ship’.
Can we consider ‘ly’ and ’ship’ to be the variants of one and the same morpheme? Yes, we can,
if ‘ly’ and ’ship’ mean THE SAME.
Let us check whether ‘ly’ and ’ship’ mean THE SAME or NOT.
Let us test them in the same environment, for example, in combination with ‘friend’. We get two
words:
- friendly
- friendship.
‘Friendly’ and ‘friendship’ are DIFFERENT words: - ‘friendship’ – the noun denoting a warm,
loyal attitude; - ‘friendly’ – the adjective denoting a warm, loyal attitude.
WHAT makes difference between the meanings of these words? The root? No, these words have
THE SAME root. So, the difference in meaning between the words ‘friendship’ and ‘friendly’ is
due to the suffixes ‘ly’ and ’ship’. It means that ‘ly’ and ’ship’ are characterized by
CONTRASTIVE DISTRIBUTION. ‘ly’ and ’ship’ are NOT the variants of THE SAME
morpheme. They are two different morphemes.
Thus, the notion of DISTRIBUTION is necessary to understand with what kind of morphs we
deal: - either with morphs which represent THE SAME morpheme;
- or with morphs which belong to DIFFERENT morphemes.
Morphs have DIFFERENT FORMS (they consist of different phonemes), but the can have THE
SAME MEANING. In this case they are variants of THE SAME MORPHEME.
Morphs with DIFFERENT MEANINGS represent DIFFERENT MORPHEMES. The
distribution of morphs THE SAME MEANING can be:
- either complementary,
- or non-contrastive.
CARD 4
The grammatical category as a generalized and abstract grammatical meaning. Four
grammatical categories expressed by the noun. Seven grammatical categories expressed by
the verb. One grammatical category expressed by the adjective. The synthetic grammatical
form. The analytical grammatical form. The presence of a discontinuous morpheme as a
feature of an analytical grammatical form. The similarity and difference between
analytical grammatical forms and phrases (=word-combinations). The bound and free
grammatical morphemes. The word-morpheme as an element \ component of an analytical
grammatical form.
The grammatical category it is a broad generalized grammatical meaning. Gram.category
characterizes any part of speech. EX: the class of nouns. According to Blokh it characterized by
4 gram.categories: number, case, gender, determination. The class of verbs has 7
gram.categories: number, person, tense, mood, voice, category of development, category of
retrospective coordination. Class of adjective has one morphological category – degree of
comparisons.
Each category is expressed through grammatical meaning. EX: the category of number is
expressed by the meaning of singular and plural numbers.
Voice: active and passive.
Synthetical (synthetic) grammatical forms are built by means of the morphemic composition of
the word. This includes the morphemic means, which were described in the previous unit: outer
inflexion with the help of adding grammatical suffixes to the stems of the words, e.g.: cat - cats;
inner inflexion, or vowel interchange inside the root, e.g.: goose - geese; and suppletivity, when
different roots are combined within the same paradigm, e.g.: go – went. Analytical grammatical
forms are built by the combination of the notional word with auxiliary words, e.g.: come - have
come. Analytical forms consist of two words which together express one grammatical meaning;
in other words, they are grammatically idiomatic: the meaning of the grammatical form is not
immediately dependent on the meanings of its parts. Analytical forms are combinations of the
auxiliary element (a word -morpheme) and the notional element; is writing.
In the analytical form is writing the auxiliary verb be is lexically empty. It expresses the
grammatical meaning. The notional element expresses both the lexical and the grammatical
meaning. So the grammatical meaning is expressed by the two components of the analytical
form: the auxiliary verb be and the affix -ing.. The word-morpheme be and the inflexion –ing
constitute a discontinuous morpheme.
Analytical forms are correlated with synthetic forms. There must be at least one synthetic form
in the paradigm.
Analytical forms have developed from free phrases and there are structures which take an
intermediary position between free phrases and analytical forms: will go, more beautiful.
Grammatical morphemes are auxiliary verbs and inflexions. They may also be free (Free
morphemes are morphemes that can stand by themselves as single words) and bound (Bound
morphemes are morphemes that must be attached to another form and cannot stand alone. Bound
morphemes include all types of affixes: prefixes and suffixes.). Auxiliary verbs are usually free
grammatical morphemes, while inflexions are the bound ones. Bound grammatical morphemes
are deprived of any lexical meaning of their own, they express only grammatical meaning (of
tense, case, voice) and thus express some morphological categories. E.g.: the grammatical
morpheme -s in the verb represents the grammatical categories of number and person
CARD 5
The word, its lexical and grammatical meanings. The lexical meaning expressed by the root
of the word. The lexical meaning as the information about the denotatum or the referent of
the word. The difference between the denotatum and the referent of the word. The
components of the lexical meaning of the word: the denotational \ logical meaning and the
connotational meaning. The variants of the connotational meaning: the emotive \ emotional
charge and the emotive \ emotional implication. The stylistic reference as part of the lexical
meaning. The grammatical morphemes (endings, infixes, discontinuous morphemes). The
grammatical meanings expressed by the noun. The grammatical meanings expressed by the
verb. The grammatical meanings expressed by the adjective. The part-of-speech meaning
as part of the grammatical meaning.
CHAPTER IV
THE WORD AND THE WORD-FORM
§ 1. The word, its definition and criteria.
ПОН
§ 1. Cлово, крит
Word is the largest morphological unit. It is the smallest naming (nominative)
Cлово являетс
unit of language. It is formed by morphemes. It enters the lexicon of language as its номинативной единице
elementary component.
является элементарной
§ 2. Понятие языко
§ 2. The notion of the linguistic sign. The problem of meaning.
The notion of meaning is closely related to the notion of the linguistic sign. The
linguistic sign is defined as a unity of form and meaning. The meaningful units of
language – from the morpheme up to the supra-sentential constructions – are called
‘signemes’ by М.Y. Blokh.
According to Ferdinand de Saussure, the linguistic sign unites not a thing and a
name, but a concept and a sound-image. When we pronounce table, we may not mean a
concrete table but we mean a table in general, i.e. we associate the chain of phonemes
[teibl] with a concept of the table.
The sound-image is not the material sound, a purely physical thing, but the
psychological imprint of the sound, the impression that it makes on our senses.
So, the linguistic sign is a two-sided psychological entity. The sides are
intimately related and each recalls the other. These sides are called the plane of
expression and the plane of content, i.e. a linguistic sign is characterized by a meaning
and a phonic shape.
The phoneme is not a linguistic sign: it has a phonic shape, but it has no
meaning. The morpheme, the word and the sentence are linguistic signs.
Meaning is an important notion necessary for grammatical description though
some representatives of structural and descriptive linguistics have tried to do without
meaning. The main linguistic unit related to the notion of meaning is the word because
the word is the smallest naming unit.
Word, like other linguistic signs, is of double nature: it is material because it
can be heard or seen, and it is immaterial or ideal as far as its meaning is concerned.
The material aspect is regarded as the form of the word; the immaterial (ideal) aspect is
its meaning, or content.
There are numerous definitions and understandings of the phenomenon of
meaning, or content. In the simplest way, meaning may be explained as the information
conveyed by the given sign.
The linguistic sign is a two-aspect unit in which the material side (the chain of
phonemes or the sequence of letters) is associated with certain information. A chain of
phonemes or a sequence of letters associated with no information is meaningless and is
not a sign.
Word-meaning is not homogeneous. It is made of various components.
Grammarians differentiate between the two principal types of meaning: lexical and
grammatical. Some of the linguists also mention the lexical-grammatical meaning.
Lexical meaning is defined differently by different linguistic schools. The
disciples of F. de Saussure consider meaning to be the relation between the object or
notion meant, and the name itself. Descriptive linguistics of the Bloomfieldian trend
defines the meaning as the situation in which the word is uttered. Leonard’s
Bloomfield’s understanding of meaning was very unusual at that time. Later his
concept of meaning was developed by Charles Fries, but even now meaning is one of
the problems linguists seek to solve.
L. Bloomfield believed that the meaning of an utterance can be found through
the response of the hearers. He wrote:
“…by uttering a linguistic form a speaker prompts his hearers to respond to the
situation; this situation and the responses to it are the linguistic meaning of the form.
We assume that each linguistic form has a constant and definite meaning, different from
the meaning of any other linguistic form in the same language”.
Russian grammarians point out that lexical meaning is the realization of the
notion by means of a definite language system. Through the lexical meaning we
understand what exactly is named by the given word.
The lexical meaning can be analysed as including denotational (denotative) and
connotational (connotative) components.
Понятие значения
определяется как единс
морфемы до сверхфраз
Блоха.
Согласно подход
название, а понятие
подразумевать не конк
звуковую последователь
Звуковой образ ‒
а психологический «отп
Итак, языковой
плана языкового знака –
во взаимосвязи и взаим
значение и звуковая фор
Фонема не является
обладает значением. Мо
Значение играет важ
представители структур
без него. Основная язы
слово, потому что слово
Cлово, как и други
с одной стороны, с точк
видеть или слышать, с д
слово нематериально.
Существует множ
образом сущность значе
знаком. Языковой знак
сторона (последовател
передаваемой информа
не выражает информаци
Значение слов
Грамматисты различа
грамматическое. Неко
значение.
Лексическое
лингвистическими шко
значение как связь
Дескриптивисты блумф
ситуацию, в которой уп
была новой в его время.
но даже сейчас проблем
По Л. Блумфил
адресата. Он писал,
стимулирует слушателя
являются языковым зна
постоянным значением
языковой формы в данн
Отечественные
реализация понятия пос
мы понимаем, что обозн
Лексическое з
денотативного и конно
The denotational component is also called the notional, logical content of the
word.
It may be also called the referential or extensional meaning.
The denotational component of the lexical meaning of the word contains the
information about what is exactly denoted by this word. This information can be found
in explanatory dictionaries: they provide definitions of words’ meanings, such
definitions being actually the expression of the content of the denotational component.
For example, the denotational component of the lexical meaning of the noun
‘lion’ is formulated like this: ‘a large gregarious predatory feline mammal of open
country in parts of Africa and India, having a tawny yellow coat and, in the male, a
shaggy mane’. When we read this definition we understand what exactly denoted by
this lexical unit.
The adjective ‘denotational \ denotative’ is derived from the noun ‘denotatum’
which comes from the Latin word ‘denotatum’ which means “the denoted object”.
Alongside the term ‘denotatum’ linguists use the term ‘referent’. The
understandings of these terms differ in different approaches. For some linguists there is
no difference between the meanings of these words.
In the theories which make no discrimination between reference and denotation
(for example, in those by Ch. Ogden and A.A. Richards), denotatum means the same as
referent – anything in the extralinguistic world that is denoted by a linguistic
expression.
Other researchers stress that denotatum should not be confused with referent.
If linguists discriminate between denotation and reference, they ascribe
denotata to words taken as abstract (virtual, potential) units, i.e. words taken as
elements of the language-system, not as words used in the particular utterance. In this
case, the word’s denotatum is all the objects of reality (things, properties, relations,
situations, states, processes, actions, etc.) which can be named by this language unit.
Thus the denotatum of a word taken as a unit of language (not as a unit of speech) is a
class of objects which can be denoted by this word.
Some words denote non-existing, imaginable objects, e.g. unicorn, phoenix,
angel. They are said either to have the “empty” denotatum, or to have no denotatum at
all.
A referent is understood in this case as a specific person, place, or thing that a
speaker identifies when using a word.
For example, in the sentence ‘Mary saw me’, the referent of the word ‘Mary’ is
the particular person called Mary who is being spoken of, while the referent of the word
‘me’ is the person uttering the sentence.
The referent must not necessarily belong to the objective reality, it may be an
imaginable object, person, property, etc, for example, it may be a literary character.
The English term ‘referent’ comes from “to refer” – “to correlate”. These two
words both come from Latin referens and its Genitive case form referentis which
means ‘referring’.
The structure of the denotational meaning of the word can be presented as
consisting of components ‒ elementary meanings (senses), or semes. Such procedure is
called componential analysis.
A word’s definition found in a dictionary exemplifies a case of componential
analysis. For example, the meaning of the word ‘son’ may be described as “a direct
male offspring of the first generation”.
‘Grandson’ is described as “a direct male offspring of the second generation”.
The words artist, coward, friend, lass, visitor reveal a common denominator,
which is the very general meaning of person. This common element of the denotational
meaning is called the archiseme.
The other component of the lexical meaning is the connotational (connotative)
one, because the plane of content of word comprises not only the result of human
mental activity but emotions as well. The connotational (connotative) component of the
lexical meaning reflects the speaker’s attitude to the denotatum. It comprises the
emotive charge and the stylistic value of the word.
Денотативный
слова, референциальн
предметным значением.
Денотативный
информацию о том, чт
мы находим в толко
перечисление основны
денотативный компоне
стайное хищное млекоп
пространствах Африки
самцов’. Достаточно пр
Прилагательное
‘денотат’, которое восх
объект’.
Наряду с терм
‘референт’. Суть эти
лингвистических подхо
В теориях, в кот
же (например, это подх
самое, что и референт
языковой единицей.
По мнению дру
веши.
Если лингвисты
денотаты тем словам,
потенциальном) значен
своего речевого употре
объекты (предметы, сво
могут быть обозначены
слова являются знакам
единорог, эльф, дракон
денотат или что у них в
Референтом сло
обозначается говорящи
предложении ‘Мария
конкретное лицо по име
является сам говорящий
Референт може
воображаемому, наприм
Слово ‘референт
настоящего времени вре
назад’.
Структуру дено
состоящую из компонен
вид анализа семантики
Словарное толкование
лексическое значение с
мужского пола по отнош
сына’. Лексемы худож
своего значения общий
относит предмет к о
человеческих сушеств (
Другой компо
денотативный компонен
действительности, а
отношение к этой дейст
и стилистическую окра
The emotional content of the word is its capacity to evoke or directly express
emotion. It is rendered by the emotional or expressive part of meaning, also called
emotive charge, intentional or affective connotations of words.
Types of affective connotations are:
a) emotions (compare daddy with father);
b) evaluation (compare clique with group);
c) intensity (compare adore with love).
For example, the word hovel denotes ‘a small house or cottage’. It is the
notional, or logical part of the lexical meaning of the word hovel, i.e. the denotational
(denotative) component of it.
Besides, the word hovel implies that it is a miserable dwelling place, dirty, in
bad repair. This implication is the word’s connotational (connotative) meaning, or,
more exactly, the connotational component of the lexical meaning, its emotive charge.
The expressive counterpart of meaning is optional. Many lexical units lack the
connotational (connotative) component in the structure of their meaning, for example
no emotional charge can be felt when we hear or read such words as table, chalk,
brown, go, etc.
The emotive charge varies in different word-classes.
In interjections the emotive element prevails.
In conjunctions the emotive charge is practically non-existent.
The emotive charge is one of the objective semantic features proper to words as
linguistic units, as units of language-system, for example daddy, mummy, darling,
honey, scoundrel, fraud, traitor, betray, treacherous, fraudulent.
The emotive charge should not be confused with emotive implication that
words acquire in speech. It is to a great extent subjective. It depends on the personal
experience of the speaker. For example, the word ‘hospital’ seems to be devoid of any
emotional element. But different people may provide it with different emotive
implications. A person who has been very ill and has spent many horrible days there
would provide this word with quite specific implications in comparison to the
implications of the person living across the street from the hospital.
Another example: if we take the lexeme ‘daddy’ we will definitely feel the
expression of love and affection connected with this word.
This is the emotive charge conveyed by this language unit outside any context.
However, in a sentence the same word may change its emotional colouring and
begin to expresses quite an opposite connotation. For example, we can imagine a child
angry at their father, exclaiming: “Oh, awful Daddy, I hate you!”.
The units awful and hate reveal the negative emotive implication acquired by
the noun ‘daddy’ in this context.
Words differ in the stylistic reference.
This aspect of the word’s meaning is also of the connotational character.
Stylistically, lexemes can generally be subdivided into literary, neutral and
colloquial layers. Compare, for example, slay with kill: they differ in stylistic
colouring.
Grammatical meaning, which is added to lexical meaning, does not give us an
idea of what is designated by the word.
Grammatical meaning is that part of the information conveyed by a word which
is related to certain properties of the object or phenomenon named by the given word.
For example, objects can be presented in the quantity of one item or in the
quantity of more than one item. This property is reflected in the noun’s category of
number: nouns express either the grammatical meaning of the singular number or that
of the plural number.
Grammarians maintain that the grammatical meaning is of the more general and
abstract character than the lexical one. It means that the given lexical meaning is
confined to the definite sound-form and generally you cannot find the same lexical
meaning expressed by a different sequence of phonemes.
Certainly, there are cases of synonymy when different words express similar
lexical meanings.
Эмоциональное
выражать эмоции. Выр
эмоциональная окраска,
Аффективные ко
а) эмоции (сравн
б) оценку (сравн
в) интенсивност
Например, сущ
построенная или раз
денотативный и конно
«небольшая изба» о
логического) компонен
формулировка коннотат
оценку объекта.
Коннотативный
значения необязательно
выражения эмоций нель
мел, идти и т.д.
Эмоциональный
категорий. У междомет
союзов эмоциональная о
Эмоциональный
слова как единицы
восхитительный, прев
предать, отвратительн
Этот компонент
компонентом, который
речевого высказывания
есть как единица языков
коннотации. Однако в
тягостных дней в этом
вполне определенная не
Другой пример:
определенно чувствуе
выражаемый данной
предложении это слово
положительной на отри
может воскликнуть р
негативную окраску сл
контексте.
Слова различаю
значения также отно
значения. С этой точ
письменного или разго
укокошить.
Наряду с лекс
значение, которое, в
представления о том
Грамматическое знач
обозначаемого объект
представлен в количес
свойство отражено фор
значения единственного
Грамматическое
характер, чем лексичес
значение связано с ко
последовательность фон
But these meanings are only similar, they are not identical.
Unlike the lexical meaning, the grammatical meaning is not confined to a single
sound-form. One and the same grammatical meaning can be expressed by a huge
number of word-forms. For example, the forms cats, dogs, bridges, children,
phenomena, men, women etc all express the grammatical meaning of plurality.
Such a set of forms united by the same grammatical meaning but differing in
the lexical one is called the grammeme. The members of such a set are different words
with different roots.
Grammarians also distinguish the part-of-speech meaning.
Words are classified into major word-classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs)
and minor word-classes (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, particles).
The part-of-speech meaning can be considered as consisting of two
components: lexical and grammatical. For example, the lexical component of the partof-speech meaning of the noun is thingness; the lexical component of the part-of-speech
meaning of the verb is process, action; for adjectives and adverbs it is the meaning of
property, quality.
The grammatical aspect of the part-of-speech meaning is revealed through
morphology and syntax.
Morphologically, the members of the same part of speech share the same set of
grammatical forms, that is the same paradigm. For example, nouns have the following
paradigmatic set of forms: child, child’s, children, children’s.
Syntactically, the members of the same part of speech perform identical
functions in the sentence.
For example, all finite verbal forms act the predicates in the sentence.
Adjectives perform the functions of the attribute and the predicative complement,
detached adjectives can function as adverbial modifiers.
Конечно, сущес
выражаемое лексическо
синонимов близко, оно
В отличие от
значения не связано с
словоформы cats, dogs,
одно и то же грамматич
Такой ряд форм
значение, но образованн
значение, называется гр
Грамматисты та
основные части речи (
служебные части речи
значение можно ра
грамматического ком
частеречного значения
глагола это значение
признака. Грамматич
морфологический и си
парадигма, то есть набо
члены данного клас
Синтаксический аспе
функционирование в ро
в предложении занима
предложении определ
прилагательные могут б
Вопросы для само
Test yourself:
1. Speak on the notion of the linguistic sign.
2. Speak on the different understandings of the essence of the lexical meaning.
3. Comment on the denotational (denotative) and connotational (connotative)
components of the lexical meaning.
4. Comment on the notions of the denotatum and the referent.
5. Speak on the types of affective connotations.
6. Speak on the difference between the emotive charge and the emotive
implication.
7. Comment on the nature of the grammatical meaning.
8. Speak on the part-of-speech meaning.
1. Прокомментир
2. Прокомментир
3. Объясните, чт
лексического з
4. Что такое дено
между ними.
5. Назовите виды
6. Объясните сх
импликацией э
7. Что такое грам
8. Что такое часте
THE NOTION OF THE GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY
A GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY is a very abstract, very general grammatical meaning
which is expressed by every member of a PART OF SPEECH.
For example:
The NOUN expresses:
1)
2)
3)
4)
the grammatical category of NUMBER
the grammatical category of CASE
the grammatical category of GENDER
the grammatical category of DETERMINATION
The VERB expresses:
1) the grammatical category of NUMBER
2) the grammatical category of PERSON
3) the grammatical category of TENSE
4) the grammatical category of MOOD
5) the grammatical category of VOICE
6) the grammatical category of DEVELOPMENT
7) the grammatical category of RETROSPECTIVE COORDINATION
Ted knows the rule.
The mechanism of grammatical AGREEMENT \ CONCORD between the subject and the
predicate in the meanings of PERSON and NUMBER.
The ADJECTIVE expresses the grammatical category of DEGREES OF COMPARISON.
GRAMMATICAL MEANING OF NOUN, VERB AND ADJECTIVE:
The word combines in its semantic structure two meanings – lexical and
grammatical. Lexicalmeaning is the individual meaning of the word
(e.g. table). Grammaticalmeaning is the meaning of the whole class or a subclass. For example,
the class of nouns has the grammatical meaning ofthingness. If we take a noun (table) we may
say that it possesses its individual lexical meaning (it corresponds to a definite piece of furniture)
and the grammatical meaning of thingness (this is the meaning of the whole class). Besides, the
noun ‘table’ has the grammatical meaning of a subclass –countableness. Any verb combines its
individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of verbiality – the ability to denote
actions or states. An adjective combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical
meaning of the whole class of adjectives – qualitativeness – the ability to denote qualities.
Adverbs possess the grammatical meaning of adverbiality – the ability to denote quality of
qualities.
GRAMMATICAL MORPHEMES AND ROOT AS A MORPHEME:
Morphemes can be classified in different ways.
The first classification is positional. In this case, the morphemes are classified according
to the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central one, which is called the root.
The root is the central, basic component of notional words. Many of such words consist only of
the root: cat, dog, wall, run, know, sing, sweet, good, bad, well, far. The root is basic both from
the semantic and structural points of view. Semantically, the root is basic because it expresses
the information about the referent of the word, i.e. it is from the root that we understand what
exactly is denoted by this word. Structurally, the root is basic because it serves as the basis for
forming word-building series, like for example, know, known, unknown, knowledge,
knowledgeable. The marginal morphemes are called affixes, which are divided into prefixes,
infixes and suffixes. Prefixes precede the root, for example: undo, unpleasant, discharge,
submission, misprint, rewrite. Suffixes follow the root: teacher, artist, shorter, sweetest, darken,
neatness, childless. Infixes are represented by the vowel interchange inside the root: blood [ʌ] >
bleed [i:], goose [u:] > geese [i:], man [æ] > men [e].
Morphemes can also be classified according to the meaning they express. The root
expresses the lexical meaning, this is why the root can be also called the lexical morpheme. It
expresses the concrete, “material” part of the meaning of the word. As it was pointed above, a
notional word can consist only of the root (table, nice, want, close) and in such a case the lexical
meaning of the whole word is expressed by its root. The lexical meaning of the word is the
information about its referent, that is the information about what exactly is denoted by the given
word.
CARD 6
The word as the smallest nominating unit of the language. Looseness \ positional mobility
as the feature of the word. Indivisibility as the feature of the compound word. Isolatability
as the feature of the word. Looseness \ positional mobility as the feature of the wordmorpheme. Isolatability as the feature of the word-morpheme. Indivisibility does not
characterize a word in the analytical form.
The WORD is the third basic unit of the language. The word is the smallest NOMINATIVE
language unit. It means that words serve as NAMES of what we deal with: names of things,
actions, qualities.
Words\ lexemes are characterized by:
- isolatability
- looseness\ positional mobility
- compound words are characterized by uninterruptibility.
Isolatability means that a word can be used separately from the rest of the sentence. For
example, in dialogues ONE word can serve as the answer to a question.
For example:
- Where are you going? - Home.
The speaker uses ‘home’ instead of the sentence ‘I am going home’.
Looseness\ positional mobility means that a word, unlike a morpheme, CAN SHIFT inside a
sentence.
For example: Henry was there. → Was Henry there?
Here we must remark that the feature of looseness\ positional mobility characterizes also one
type of MORPHEMES. These are FREE grammatical morphemes.
They are the first components of ANALYTICAL grammatical forms. They can also change
their position in the sentence:
- The student has answered the question. → Has the student answered the question?
- They are sleeping. → Are they sleeping?
- They were hurt by the remark. → Were they hurt by the remark?
- The girl will come soon. → Will the girl come soon?
As these morphemes share one of the noun’s features some grammarians call them ‘wordmorphemes’. In another theoretical approach these movable units are NOT considered to be
MORPHEMES. They are considered to be PARTS \ COMPONENTS of a discontinuous
morpheme.
Sapir takes into consideration the syntactic and semantic aspects when he calls the word “one of
the smallest completely satisfying bits of isolated ‘meaning’, into which the sentence resolves
itself”. Sapir also points out one more, very important characteristic of the word, its
indivisibility: “It cannot be cut into without a disturbance of meaning, one or two other or both
of the several parts remaining as a helpless waif on our hands”. The essence of indivisibility will
be clear from a comparison of the article a and the prefix a- in a lion and alive. A lion is a wordgroup because we can separate its elements and insert other words between them: a living lion, a
dead lion. Alive is a word: it is indivisible, i.e. structurally impermeable: nothing can be inserted
between its elements. The morpheme a- is not free, is not a word.
CARD 7
Some grammatical forms of words make up the equipollent opposition. Some grammatical
forms of words make up the gradual opposition. Some grammatical forms of words make
up the privative opposition. The privative opposition. The marked \ strong and unmarked \
weak members of the privative opposition. The cases of the reduction/neutralisation of a
privative opposition (man, if-clauses, when-clauses, a future planned action).
The correlations of forms expressing grammatical categories are described in terms of
oppositions.
Three main types of oppositions are distinguished: privative, gradual, and equipollent. By
the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (two members), ternary
(three members), quaternary (four members), etc.
Some grammatical forms of words make up the equipollent opposition.
The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are
distinguished by different positive features. Equipollent oppositions in the system of English
morphology constitute a minor type. An equipollent morphological opposition in English can be
identified in the plane of expression in the paradigms of suppletive forms, for example, in the
correlation of the person and number forms of the verb be: am – are – is.
The basis for uniting these grammatical forms within the same paradigm is their common
grammatical and lexical meanings: the common lexical meaning of these forms is ‘to have
presence in the realm of perceived reality, exist’, the common grammatical meaning is the
meaning of the present tense.
The members of this ternary opposition differ in the grammatical meanings of person/ number.
Each meaning is associated with its own specific form: am – the first person singular; is – the
third person singular; are – the plural number of any person.
Some grammatical forms of words make up the gradual opposition.
The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished
not by the presence or absence of a feature, but by the degree of it.
Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognized. In principle, they can be
identified as a minor type on the semantic level only.
An example of the gradual morphological opposition can bee seen in the category of
comparison: white – whiter – whitest.
Each of the members of this ternary opposition conveys the meaning of being white, but each
of the members renders a different degree of this quality.
GRADUAL oppositions are built by forms of COMPARISON:
1) short – shorter – the shortest (these are synthetic forms of comparison)
2) difficult – more difficult – the most difficult (these are analytical forms of comparison)
3) bad – worse – the worst (these are suppletive forms of comparison)
Such oppositions are called GRADUAL because the COMPARATIVE and SUPERLATIVE
forms express the GRADUAL INCREASE in the quantity of the quality. For example, the form
‘difficult ’denotes the INITIAL quantity of difficulty. The form ‘more difficult ’denotes a greater
quantity of difficulty. The form ‘most difficult ’denotes the greatest quantity of difficulty.
Some grammatical forms of words make up the privative opposition. The privative
opposition. The marked \ strong and unmarked \ weak members of the privative
opposition.
The privative opposition is the most important for English morphology. Such oppositions are
built by forms which have the same root, but one form has a morpheme or a morph which
expresses some grammatical meaning and the other form has NOT such a morpheme or a morph.
It is formed by a contrastive pair a group of members in which one member is characterized by
the presence of a certain differential feature (“mark”), the other member is characterized by the
absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the “marked”, or
“strong”, or “positive” member. The other member is called the “unmarked”, or “weak”, or
“negative” member.
The basis for uniting such members into one opposition is that they are forms of the same word
and they express the same grammatical category. The general meaning of a grammatical
category (the categorial meaning) is represented by more concrete, particularizing grammatical
meanings, each of them being expressed by its own form.
For example, the categorial meaning of tense is expressed through the meanings of the present,
past and future tenses. The meaning of the category of person is expressed by the grammatical
meanings of the first, second and third persons. The organization of word forms on the principle
of privative opposition is very common for the morphology of the English language.
A morphological category can be described as a system of expressing a generalized categorial
meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms. Thus, the categorial
meaning of number is expressed by means of correlation of forms: one of which expresses the
meaning of the singular number, the other form expresses the meaning of the plural number, for
example cat :: cats. The member ‘cat ’expresses the meaning of the singular number, this
meaning is expressed through the absence of any material sign (explicit morpheme), in other
words – by means of the zero morph. Such a member of the opposition is the unmarked (weak,
negative) member. The word form ‘cats ’expresses the meaning of the plural number, this
meaning is expressed through the morph [s]. This member of the opposition is the marked
(strong, positive) member.
The verbal category of voice is expressed through two grammatical meanings: the meaning of
the active voice and the meaning of the passive voice, for example take :: be taken. Each of these
has its own form of expression. The meaning of the active voice is expressed by the zero morph,
the meaning of the passive voice is expressed by the discontinuous morpheme {be… en}. The
form of the active voice is the marked member of the opposition, the form of the passive voice is
the unmarked member.
Besides the differences in the form, there are also regular semantic differences between the
members of the privative oppositions: the meaning of the weak member is always more general
and more abstract, while the meaning of the strong member is always more particular and
concrete.
For instance, the present tense form of the verb is used to render meanings much broader than
the meanings which are related to “now”.
Cf.: The sun rises in the East (strictly speaking, this action does not happen in the present, but
during a broader and indefinite period of time). If / When John calls tomorrow… (the action
refers to the future). Ann is arriving on Sunday (the action refers to the future). The museum
opens next Friday (the action refers to the future).
Due to this difference in meaning, the weak member of the opposition is used in a wider range
of contexts than the strong member. In certain contexts the weak member can even substitute the
strong member expressing the same meaning.
For example, the singular form of the noun can be used generically to denote all the objects
belonging to a certain class.
For example, the noun ‘rose ’(the weak member) can mean the same as ‘roses ’(the strong
member). The sentence ‘The rose is my favourite flower ’means the same as ‘Roses are my
favourite flowers’. Here the weak member of the privative opposition ‘rose :: roses ’is used
instead of the strong member.
Grammarians designate the unmarked member of the opposition by the “non“- terms, e.g.: nonpast tense, non-continuous aspect, non-perfect from. It is connected with the fact that the
meaning of the weak member of the privative opposition is more general and abstract as
compared with the meaning of the strong member which is more particular and concrete.
Grammarians recommend to describe the semantics of the members of a privative opposition
starting with the strong (marked) member because it is easier to be described.
The semantics of the unmarked member may be even left without detailization: one may simply
state that the range of the categorial meanings, which are left after the “extraction” of the strictly
defined meanings of the marked member, refer to the sphere of the unmarked member.
The cases of the reduction/neutralisation of a privative opposition (man, if-clauses, whenclauses, a future planned action).
The reduction (=neutralization) of the opposition means that in some contexts this
contrast (=difference) between the meanings of the members of the opposition disappears: the
unmarked member begins to express the meaning of the marked member. In other words, both
members of the opposition begin to express the same meaning and the difference between them
disappears (the difference in meaning disappears; the difference in form remains).
1. For example, a future action is usually described in English by shall/will – forms.
The forms of the Present Simple (Indefinite) and the Present Continuous (Progressive)
describe actions taking place in the present. But there are contexts in which the forms of the
Present Simple (Indefinite) and the Present Continuous (Progressive) describe a future
planned action: Ann is arriving tomorrow, The museum opens in a week.
In these sentences the weak member of the categorial opposition has replaced the strong
member. This phenomenon is called ‘oppositional reduction’, or ‘oppositional substitution’.
2. The subordinate clauses of time and condition use the present tense, which expresses
the future action. The future tense is not used.
We'll come home if it rains. (Condition - Condition)
We'll be back home when it rains. (Time is Time)
If / When John calls tomorrow… (the action refers to the future).
3. For example: the word ‘man’ has two forms – ‘man’ and ‘men’. These forms are
opposed to each other in language and speech: they have different forms which express different
meanings (singular :: plural).
There is room only for one man here (‘man’ expresses the meaning of ‘one’ - the
meaning of singularity).
Three more men entered (‘men’ expresses the meaning of ‘more than one’ - the meaning
of plurality).
Yet, in some contexts this difference in meaning disappears and both members begin to
mean the same. Such a context is, for example, an expression ‘Человеку свойственно
ошибаться’. - Man is prone to make mistakes. Here ‘man’ means the same as ‘men’: people, not
one person. This can be proved by substitution: if we replace ‘man’ with ‘men’, the meaning of
the whole sentence will not change: Men are prone to make mistakes. – Людям свойственно
ошибаться. The noun man in the quoted sentence is used in the singular, but it is quite clear that
it stands not for an individual person, but for people in general, for the idea of "mankind". In
other words, the noun is used generically, it implies the class of denoted objects as a whole.
Thus, in the oppositional light, here the weak member of the categorial opposition of number has
replaced the strong member.
CARD 8
The Future-in-the-Past. Л.С. Бархударов’s point of view that future-in-the-past tense
forms do not exist. А.И. Смирницкий’s point of view that future-in-the-past tense forms
do not exist, that such forms are forms of the Conditional Mood. The Future-in-the-Past
tense does not fit into the set of the tenses ‘present – past – future’. М.Я. Блох’s system of
the four tenses ‘present – past – future – future-in-the-past’. The two temporal categories:
the category of primary time and the category of prospective time. The expression of the
category of primary time either in the meaning of non-past or in the meaning of past. The
expression of the category of prospective time either in the meaning of non-after action or
in the meaning of after action.
The verbal category of TENSE
1) The PRESENT tense
2) The PAST tense
3) The FUTURE tense
М.Я. БЛОХ:
The LEXICAL expressions of time:
1) present-oriented \ absolutive expressions of time
2) non-present-oriented \ non-absolutive expressions of time
A) relative expression of time
B) factual expression of time
The absolutive (present-oriented) time denotation:
PRESENT:
Now
yesterday
today
in our century
PAST:
yesterday
last week
in the past
FUTURE:
tomorrow
in the years to come
very soon
in a couple of days
next week
Such denotations are oriented at the moment of speaking.
The non-absolutive (non-present-oriented) time denotation does NOT characterize an
event in terms of orientation towards the present. This kind of denotation may be either
“relative” or “factual”.
The RELATIVE expression of time correlates two or more events showing them:
- either as preceding the others
- or following the others.
Here belong:
after that
before that
at one and the same time with
some time later
at an interval of a day or two
at different times
The FACTUAL expression of time:
- either directly states the astronomical time of an event
- or conveys this meaning in terms of historical landmarks
Here belong:
in the year 1066
during the time of the First World War
at the epoch of Napoleon
at the early period of civilization
Л. С. Бархударов does NOT accept the existence of the FUTURE tense.
According to him, the grammatical category of English tense is represented by the
oppositions of TWO forms:
PAST :: NON-PAST
Binary privative oppositions:
play :: played
send :: sent
tell :: told
am asked ::was asked
are invited :: were invited
has done :: had done
is asking :: was asking
are singing :: were singing
The non-past tense member is the unmarked member.
The grammatical meaning of the UNMARKED member, i.e. the meaning of the non-past,
is expressed by the ZERO ALLOMORPH.
The Л. С. Бархударов defines the semantic content of the non-past (present) tense forms
as the indication of the fact the action does NOT refer to the sphere of the PAST.
In the opposition of the non-past to the past, the NON-PAST form is the UNMARKED
member with its extensive meaning.
Л. С. Бархударов is AGAINST using the traditional term the “present” tense. He uses
the term “NON-PAST” tense.
His arguments:
The meaning of the word “PRESENT” is associated with the stretch of time including
THE MOMENT OF SPEAKING (the “present” moment). However forms traditionally termed
as “PRESENT” describe actions which do NOT occur at the moment of speech.
NON-PAST tense forms do NOT always indicate that the action coincides with the
MOMENT OF SPEAKING.
According to him, this indication is only ONE of the meanings of the non-past forms,
e.g.: I see a man in the street.
The OTHER meanings of the non-past forms show no relation with the moment of
speaking and are as follows:
1) NON-PAST forms can describe an action, process or state which has no time limits
and not confined to any definite time period:
- repeated, habitual actions
- universal truths.
E.g.:
I work at the Institute of Foreign Languages.
I like folk music.
He always goes to the cinema on Saturdays.
The sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
Paris is the capital of France.
Birds fly.
2) PRESENT PERFECT forms also can denote actions which are not associated with the
moment of speaking but are related with an indefinite moment. Such actions can occur at any
time or always.
E.g.: A plane that has lost control cannot land safely;
3) CONTINUOUS forms usually relate actions to a definite moment of time or a definite
period of time. For example, the PRESENT CONTINUOUS forms relate actions with the
MOMENT OF SPEAKING, e.g.: I am writing a letter.
Yet, in some cases the present continuous associates the action NOT with the MOMENT OF
SPEAKING. Such an action is presented as repeated, habitual, e.g.:
Whenever I see him, he is always smiling.
He is now working as a teacher.
The Government is taking steps to increase agricultural production.
The people of the world are fighting for peace.
4) NON-PAST tense forms can also denote FUTURE actions, e.g.: Tomorrow we are giving
a public concert.
The train leaves in ten minutes.
Unlike Л.С. Бархударов, М.Я. Блох sees NO CONTRADICTION between:
- the term the “present tense”
- and the fact that an action denoted by the present tense form does not always take place at
the moment of speaking.
According to him, verbs hardly ever denote actions which are developing exactly at the
moment of speaking.
М.Я. Блох:
The present can be related to such vast periods of time as:
this month
this year
in our epoch
in the present millennium
In the utterances of GENERAL TRUTH, like Two plus two makes four, The sun is a star,
Handsome is that handsome does the idea of time is almost suppressed because in such
sentences the idea of CONSTANCY, UNCHANGEABILITY is made prominent.
Nevertheless, the PRESENT tense does cover all these denotations because these processes
INCLUDE THE MOMENT OF SPEECH.
E.g. Two plus two makes four implies that it is “always and is so at the moment”.
The semantic content of the PAST tense forms is defined by grammarians as the
indication of the action’s relation with the stretch of time preceding the moment of speaking.
Л.С. Бархударов CRITICIZES this traditional definition:
- the PRESENT PERFECT form also expresses PRIORITY to the moment of speaking,
but the present perfect is not a past tense, it is present. It expresses priority + correlation with
the moment of speaking.
- the past tense forms express priority and NO correlation with the moment of
speaking.
PHONOLOGICALLY conditioned allomorphs (productive):
- /d/ (played, realized, glued, ruined)
- /t/ (passed, asked, fixed)
- /id/ (added, wanted, painted)
MORPHOLOGICALLY conditioned allomorphs (unproductive):
1) sound (vowel) interchange:
take /teik/‒ took /tuk/
bleed /bli:d/ ‒ bled /bled/
find /faind/ ‒ found /faund/
fly /flai/ ‒ flew /flu:/
blow /blou/ ‒ blew /blu:/
rise /raiz/ ‒ rose /rouz/
give /giv/ ‒ gave /geiv/
2) sound (vowel) interchange + affixation (suffixation):
tell /tel/ ‒ told /tould/
flee /fli:/ ‒ fled /fled/
sleep /sli:p/ ‒ slept /slept/
may /mei/ ‒ might /mait/
buy /bai/ ‒ bought /bo:t/
3) sound (vowel + consonant) interchange + affixation (suffixation):
leave li:v/ – left /left
lose /lu:z/ ‒ lost /lost/
stand /stænd /‒ stood /stu:d/
4) zero allomorph (zero affixation):
put
shut
spread
cut
let
set
hurt
burst
SUPPLETIVE way of the formation of past tense forms:
am/is – was
are – were
go – went
The rules for the formation of the FUTURE tense were formulated in the 19th century.
The rule was first stated by J. Wallis (1653), and since that time it has been repeated by
all grammarians, at first in its archaic form, as formulated by Wallis. The rule ran that in
DECLARATIVE (повествовательные) sentences simple futurity should be expressed:
- by SHALL in the first person,
- by WILL in the second and third.
In the second half of the 18th century these rules were supplemented by the rules for
QUESTIONS and SUBORDINATE clauses.
The FULL SET of prescription drawn up by R. Lowth (1762) and his contemporaries at
that time underlies the rules found in modern books.
Most Western grammarians REJECT THE EXISTENCE OF THE FUTURE TENSE in
the English language. The first who adopted this point of view was Otto Jespersen.
Л.С. Бархударов shares this point of view. According to him, the combinations of shall
+ infinitive and will + infinitive are NOT ANALYTICAL forms expressing the grammatical
meaning of the future but FREE word-combinations of modal verbs with infinitives of notional
words.
Л.С. Бархударов points out that ANALYTICAL forms are based on the employment of
DISCONTINUOUS MORPHEMES, like:
1) {be…en} for the expression of the passive voice
2) {be…ing} for the expression of the contninuous aspect
3) {have…en} for the expression of perfectness.
The meaning of FUTURITY is associated ONLY with the first component of the
combinations shall + infinitive and will + infinitive, i.e. with the modal verb.
That is why such combinations are NOT considered by Л.С. Бархударов to be analytical
forms.
According to Л.С. Бархударов, shall + infinitive and will + infinitive do not differ from
combinations of other modal verbs with infinitives, such as:
- may + infinitive
- can + infinitive
- must + infinitive.
Л.С. Бархударов: the verbs shall and will RETAIN their MODAL meanings in all cases
of their usage:
- sometimes the MODAL meaning prevails over the meaning of future,
- sometimes the meaning of FUTURE prevails over the modal meaning,
- sometimes the modal meaning EXCLUDES the future meaning,
- but the MODAL meaning is always present.
Л.С. Бархударов: the meaning of FUTURE cannot be separated from a MODAL
meaning because future is never real but:
- possible,
- proposed,
- planned,
- etc.
Л.С. Бархударов: the meaning of FUTURE is not associated singularly with the
combinations shall + infinitive and will + infinitive.
Future can be expressed in NUMEROUS ways in the English language, for example:
The train is leaving tomorrow;
I am going to help you;
He can do it tomorrow.
М.Я Блох does NOT agree with Л.С. Бархударов that the verbs shall and will retain
their modal meanings in ALL cases of their usage.
Shall and will can be:
1) auxiliaries to express FUTURE
2) MODAL verbs
As MODAL verbs:
1) SHALL expresses obligation, necessity, inevitability, promise;
2) WILL the verb will expresses intention, desire.
For example:
He who does not work neither shall eat (Кто не работает, тот не ест).
None are so deaf as those who will not hear.
М.Я Блох proves the purely modal meaning expressed by shall and will by
SUBSTITUTIONS:
He who does not work neither shall eat. > He who does not work must not eat.
None are so deaf as those who will not hear. > None are so deaf as those who do not
want to hear.
М.Я Блох: it is NATURAL that the expression of the meaning of FUTURITY is often
mingled with a MODAL meaning.
It is conditioned by the mere fact that the future action cannot be looked upon as real. It is
only foreseen, or anticipated, or planned, or desired, or otherwise prospected for the time to
come.
М.Я Блох distinguishes THE CATEGORY OF THE VOLUNTARY / NONVOLUNTARY FUTURE within the system of the English future tense. It affects only the
forms of the FIRST person.
Will + infinitive expresses the VOLUNTARY future.
Shall + infinitive expresses the NON-VOLUNTARY future.
The first person will-future describes an action which is to be performed by the speaker
for choice, of his own accord.
For example: Your arrival cannot have been announced to his majesty. I will see about it.
The first person shall-future expresses a future process that will be realized without the
will of the speaker, irrespective of his choice.
For example: I’m very sorry, madam, but I’m going to faint. I shall go off, madam, if I
don’t have something.
When the context changes and the meaning of volition begins to contradict the context,
the auxuliary will is automatically replaced by shall. For example, Give me a goddess’s work to
do; and I will do it. > I don’t know what I shall do with Barbara.
The category of the voluntary/non-voluntary future is neutralized in the contracted form
–‘ll.
In Modern English the form –‘ll stands both for shall and will.
The opposition representing the category of PROSPECTIVE TIME is neutralized in
certain cases:
1) using a NON-FUTURE temporal form to express a future action which is to take place
according to some PLAN or ARRANGEMENT:
The government meets in emergency session today.
I hear you sister is soon arriving from Paris?
2) MODAL verbs:
There’s no saying what may happen next.
You have to present the report before Sunday.
3) in clauses of TIME and CONDITION:
If he calls tomorrow…
When the session is over next Tuesday… .
H. Sweet expands the list of tenses. He divides them into simple and compound tenses:
SIMPLE tenses are:
- the present,
- the preterite (past)
- the future.
COMPOUND tenses belong to the PERFECT-group:
- the perfect (the present perfect),
- the pluperfect (the past perfect)
- the future perfect.
Another division of tenses suggested by H. Sweet is into:
1) primary tenses
2) secondary tenses.
The PRIMARY tenses indicate the time of the action in relation to the MOMENT OF
SPEAKING:
1) the PRESENT
2) the PRETERITE (= the PAST)
3) the FUTURE
4) the PRESENT PERFECT
The SECONDARY tenses:
1) the PLUPERFECT (= the past perfect)
2) the FUTURE PERFECT
THE FUTURE-IN-THE-PAST
Л.С. Бархударов: should and would, which are traditionally related with the expression
of the so-called Future-in-the Past, are the past-tense forms of the MODAL verbs shall and will.
Л.С. Бархударов does not consider should to be a verb independent from shall, and
would a verb independent from will.
Л.С. Бархударов: should and would CANNOT express the meaning of FUTURE
because they already express PAST.
Л.С. Бархударов:
ONE AND THE SAME form cannot represent the same category in TWO meanings
simultaneously.
Л.С. Бархударов: should and would express ONLY PAST and they are past tense forms
of the modal verbs shall and will.
FREE word-combinations:
I shall do it.
I will do it.
I should do it.
I would do it.
I can do it.
I could do it.
I must do it.
I may do it.
I might do it.
There is a PROBLEM with the forms of the FUTURE-IN-THE-PAST: it does NOT fit
into the traditional axis:
‒‒‒‒‒‒PAST‒‒‒‒‒PRESENT‒Ø‒PRESENT‒‒‒‒‒‒FUTURE‒‒‒‒→ t
moment
of speaking
Traditionally THREE temporal stretches are distinguished:
1) the PRESENT (this temporal stretch includes the MOMENT OF SPEAKING)
2) the PAST (this temporal stretch PRECEDES the moment of speaking)
3) the FUTURE (this temporal stretch FOLLOWS the moment of speaking)
According to these THREE stretches of physical time grammarians traditionally
distinguish THREE grammatical TENSES:
1) the PRESENT TENSE
2) the PAST TENSE
3) the FUTURE TENSE
‒‒‒‒‒‒PAST‒‒‒‒‒ PRESENT ‒‒‒‒‒‒FUTURE‒‒‒‒→ t
E.g.: painted – paint(s) – will/ shall paint
was painting – am/is/are painting – will/ shall be painting
had painted – have/has painted – will/ shall have painted
The PROBLEM is: how to include the FUTURE-IN-THE-PAST into this set of three
tenses?
Grammarians suggest DIFFERENT ways to solve this predicament.
Л.С. Бархударов: in the English language there are NO verbal forms expressing future.
FREE word-combinations “modal verb + infinitive”:
I shall do it.
I will do it.
I should do it.
I would do it.
А.И. Смирницкий: verbal forms which are traditionally called ‘FUTURE-IN-THEPAST’ are in fact forms of the SUBJUNCTIVE mood.
М.Я. Блох distinguishes TWO temporal categories:
1) the category of “primary time”
2) the category of “prospective time”
Any FINITE verb (used in the sentence in the function of the PREDICATE) expresses
BOTH these categories simultaneously.
Both of them answer the question: “What is the timing of the process?”
Each of these two categories is represented by TWO meanings:
1) the category of PRIMARY time:
a. the meaning of the NON-PAST
b. the meaning of the PAST
2) the category of PROSPECTIVE time
a. the meaning of the NON-AFTER action
(= non-future action)
b. the meaning of the AFTER action
(= future action)
In a sentence EACH of these two categories is expressed in ONE of its two meanings.
Thus, there can be the following COMBINATIONS of meanings:
1) NON-PAST + NON-FUTURE
2) NON-PAST + FUTURE
3) PAST + NON-FUTURE
4) PAST + FUTURE
E.g.:
1) NON-PAST + NON-FUTURE (= the PRESENT tense)
I teach English.
2) NON-PAST + FUTURE (= the FUTURE tense)
I will teach English.
3) PAST + NON-FUTURE (= the PAST tense)
I taught English.
4) PAST + FUTURE (= the FUTURE-IN-THE-PAST tense)
I would teach English.
So, we see that М.Я. Блох’s approach creates a system which
includes:
1) the PRESENT tense
2) the PAST tense
3) the FUTURE tense
4) the FUTURE-IN-THE-PAST tense
When we differentiate between the NON-PAST and PAST actions we deal with the
ABSOLUTIVE indication of time. This is the indication in relation to the MOMENT OF
SPEAKING:
1) the action does NOT precede the moment of speaking (NON-PAST)
2) the action precedes the moment of speaking (PAST)
Then we differentiate between the NON-AFTER (= non-future) and AFTER (= future)
actions.
This is a NON-ABSOLUTIVE (RELATIVE) time characteristic.
So, the meanings of the category of prospect are ADDED to the meanings of the
category of primary time.
CARD 9
The verbal category of mood. А.И. Смирницкий’s classification: Subjunctive One, the
Suppositional Mood, Subjunctive Two, the Conditional Mood. The homonymy of
Subjunctive One forms and bare infinitives. The expression of Subjunctive One in simple
sentences and in clauses (subject that-clauses, object that-clauses, appositive that-clauses).
The expression of the Suppositional Mood in clauses (subject that-clauses, object thatclauses, appositive that-clauses). Subjunctive Two present and past. The usage of
Subjunctive Two in clauses of unreal condition, after I wish, in exclamatory sentences ‘If
only’. The Conditional Mood present and past.
Mood is a the grammatical category of the verb reflecting the relation of the action denoted by
the verb to the REALITY from the speaker’s point of view
She listens attentively – just take place in present
Listen attentively – make smb do it
You would have listened if you had been interested – an imaginary action
in all sentences “listen” has different meaning
Relation of the actions denoted by verb to the reality is expressed by moods
Смирницкий: distinguishes 6 moods: indicative, imperative; subjunctive 1, Subjunctive 2,
conditional, suppositional analytical –
(oblique)
Indicative indicates that the speaker perceives the action expressed by the verb as a real fact
relating to the past, present or future tense
Imperative – some request (used in a simple sentence – where no subject)
Subjunctive 1: - bare infinitive (the infinitive without to)
The forms of Subjunctive One are homonymous to the bare infinitive (the infinitive without
the particle to). Не меняется по числам и лицам, окончания в 3 л не добавляются.
In this, the forms of Subjunctive One are similar to the forms of the imperative mood.
The difference between the forms Subjunctive One and the imperative mood is that:
The imperative mood forms are used in SIMPLE sentences in which there is NO SUBJECT.
E.g.: Do it at once!
Subjunctive One forms can be used:
§ in SIMPLE sentences in which the subject IS PRESENT. E.g. Long live our friendship!
§ in CLAUSES (here the subject is also present). E.g. He suggests that Henry do it at once. It
is necessary that Henry do it at once.
The forms of subjunctive I do not render the meaning of unreality of the action. They express
uncertainty as far as the realization of the action is concerned. The action is presented as
possible, probable, etc.
По Воронцовой – выделяет 4 наклонения (the indicative mood, the optative mood, the
speculative mood, the presumptive mood,)
the optative mood
a) the imperative mood,
b) the desiderative mood
c) the subjunctive mood
Императив и дезиреватив используются в независимых преложениях, А сибжанктив
исп в придаточных предложениях (clause)
These are the same meanings which are expressed by the imperative and the desiderative moods
(demands, instructions, requests, suggestions, intentions) but they are transferred from
independent sentences into SYNTACTICALLY DEPENDENT CLAUSES.
expressed by the forms:
- the bare infinitive,
- shall-forms
- may-forms,
- by should-forms
- by might-forms.
Mother insisted that that the room be cleaned (object)
His desire to see me privately dictates the wish that you be my ambassador (appositive)
It is absolutely necessary that I shall be near her always (subject)
Subjunctive 2:
Present – past simple / were
Past – past perfect
we may speak of the two varieties of subjunctive II:
 subjunctive II present (homonymous with the past indefinite) and
 subjunctive II past (homonymouys with the past perfect).
They are used in clauses of unreal condition (If I were you…), after I wish; If only; Oh, that; It is
(high) time, etc.
For example, He would punish you if he learned about it; He would have punished you if he had
learned about it; If only the money were / had been safe; I wish Sam took / had taken part in it; It
is time he arrived.
I wish he were here; If I were you…. - Subjunctive II present
I wish he had been there; If you had known… - Subjunctive II Past
Suppositional mood = subj 1
The suppositional mood is represented by the analytical forms containing the word-morpheme
(the mood auxiliary) should for all persons. The forms of the suppositional mood express
supposition. They are used in:
- the object clauses, e.g. I suggest that we should go.
- It is highly desirable that you should send a letter to her.
- Father supported mother’ decision that children should clean their rooms.
-
the conditional clauses, e.g. Should you meet him, tell him to come;
-
the adverbial claases of purpose, e.g. I wrote him that he shouldn’t forget it;
Г.Н. Воронцова classifies these forms as the forms of the the subjunctive mood (a variety of the
optative mood). А.И. Смирницкий points out that should-forms of the suppositional mood are
ousting (вытесняют) the forms of subjunctive I, e.g. I suggest he go there (subjunctive I) = I
suggest he should go there (the suppositional mood). Г.Н. Воронцова also stresses this
functional equivalence. She ignores the difference in the form and unites these two analytical and
synthetic forms into one mood – the subjunctive one (a variety of the optative mood), because
they express the same meaning. В.Л. Каушанская and others call such forms the analytical
forms of the subjunctive mood.
Conditional mood
The conditional mood is represented by the analytical forms containing the word-morphemes
(the mood auxiliary) should and would.
They are used in the main clauses of complex sentences with unreal condition (If you called me
tomorrow I should/ would tell you everything) and in independent sentences (Henry would gladly
do it).
These forms express the imagined consequence of an imagined condition.
two varieties of the conditional mood:
 the conditional mood present - referred to the present or future, non-perfect infinitive
Henry would do it tomorrow. If I were home I would help you
 the conditional mood past - referred to the past, perfect infinitive
Rodger would have known what to do. If I had been there I would have helped you
А.И. Смирницкий, unlike Г.Н. Воронцова and В.Л. Каушанская, does not admit the existence
of the analytical mood-forms containing the element shall, like in He shall do that. According to
him, here shall is not a word-morpheme (a mood auxiliary) but a modal verb with its own lexical
and grammatical meaning.
Unlike Г.Н. Воронцова, М.Я. Блох and В.Л. Каушанская, А.И. Смирницкий treats
combinations with may/ might not as analytical forms but as free word-combinations (modal
predicates), because, according to him, may/ might retains its own lexical meaning of possibility
in all cases of its usage
The forms of the INDICATIVE mood express the speaker’s implication that the action described
by the verbal form does not contradict the reality and, in principle, has everything in its nature
that makes its realization possible.
The OBLIQUE moods imply that the degree of the action’s probability is insignificant, that its
realization is doubtful.
CARD10.
The verbal category of voice. The active voice form and the passive voice as the binary
privative opposition. The active voice form as the unmarked member. The passive voice
form as the marked member. The discontinuous morpheme {be…en} as the mark of the
marked member. The middle \ medium voice, its resemblance to the active voice and the
passive voice. The reflexive voice, its resemblance to the active voice and its difference from
the active voice. The reflexive pronouns. The reciprocal voice, its resemblance to the active
voice and its difference from the active voice. The reciprocal pronouns.
The category of voice is represented by the grammatical meanings of the active and
passive voice.
The form of the active voice is chosen when the word denoting the doer of the action is
the subject of the sentence, e.g.: John broke the vase.
The form of the passive voice is chosen when the word denoting the doer of the action is
the object of the sentence, e.g.: The vase was broken by John.
M.Y. Blokh defines the semantics of the verbal category of voice as the category which
shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the
syntactic construction.
The category of voice is presented by the opposition of the active voice forms and the
passive voice forms, such as: asks – is asked; asked – was asked; is asking – is being asked; was
asking – was being asked; has asked – has been asked; had asked - had been asked; to ask – to be
asked; to have asked – to have been asked; asking – being asked; having asked – having been
asked.
These are privative binary oppositions in which the active voice form is the unmarked
member of the opposition and the passive voice form is marked member.
The meaning of the unmarked member, i.e. of the active voice, is expressed by the zero
morpheme. The passive voice form is analytical and the meaning of the passive voice is
expressed by the discontinuous morpheme {be…en}. The passive form as the strong (marked)
member of the opposition expresses reception the of the action by the subject of the syntactic
construction. The active form as the weak member of the opposition leaves this meaning
unspecified, i.e. it expresses “nonpassivity”. The category of voice has a much broader
representation in the system of the English verb than in the system of the Russian verb. Unlike
Russian, in English not only transitive, but also intransitive objective verbs, including
prepositional ones, can be used in the passive voice, e.g.: This film is much spoken about; I’ve
just been rung by the police; The diplomat was refused transit visa; The dress has never been
tried on; The child will be looked after; I won’t be talked to like that.
Not all verbs have the forms of the passive voice, for example, be, seem, become, appear,
go, come, belong, consist, etc. Every verb has the forms of the active voice. M.Y. Blokh divides
all the verbs into passivized and non-passivized.
The category of voice differs radically from all the other categories form the point of
view of its referential qualities. The categories of person, number, tense, development,
retrospective coordination reflect various characteristics of processes as certain facts of reality
existing irrespective of the speaker’s perception.
The situation reflected by the passive construction does not differ from the situation
reflected by the passive construction – the nature of the process is preserved intact, the
situational participants remain in their places in their unchanged quality. When we change the
meaning of the voice in a sentence, the speaker’s subjective appraisal (субъективная оценка) of
the situation is changed, e.g.: The police arrested the dentist on Friday > The dentist was arrested
by the police on Friday. These two sentences describe the same situation: the police as the doer
of the action, the dentist as the object (the recipient) of the action, Friday as the time of the
action. Yet, the presentation planes are different. The sentence The police arrested the dentist on
Friday features the act of the police. The sentence The dentist was arrested by the police on
Friday features the experience of the dentist.
Grammarians distinguish three additional aspects:
1) the medial, or middle voice,
2) the reflexive voice,
3) the reciprocal voice.
And the active voice is the unmarked member of the opposition. It isn`t marked in form and
meaning of the meaning of the act. It is less definite.
The planes of expression and content differentiate these two basic voice-forms. The marked
member of the opposition is the passive voice-form. On the plane of expression it is marked by
the presence of the auxiliary verb “to be” in the required tense-form and Participle II of the
notional verb. On the plane of content these two verb-forms are also contrasted showing that the
unmarked member of the opposition is the doer o source of the action.
e.g. He opened the door (the doer of the action).
The wind opened the door (the source of the action).
The door was opened by the wind (the recipient of the action).
When we deal with the Passive voice form, the actual doer of the action may remain unexpressed
if it is of secondary significance or unknown, but when we want to specially name the doer of the
action, it can be introduced with the preposition “by”. We should also remember that a means of
an action should be introduced with the preposition “with”.
e.g. This book was written by a young writer. = A young writer wrote the book.
The book was covered with a newspaper. = Somebody covered the book with a newspaper.
In a number of cases the opposition between Active and Passive voice-forms can be reduced. We
may have verb-forms which are active on the plane of expression and passive on the plane of
content. In such cases the predicate verb usually denotes not an action but a kind of property.
The discontinuous morpheme {be…en} as the mark of the marked member. The
MEDIAL VOICE is expressed in such cases as The concert began; The door opened; The book
sells well; The book reads like a detective story; The suggested procedure will hardly apply to all
the instances; These cigarettes smoke easily; Perhaps the loin chop will eat better than it looks.
In such sentences the form of the verb coincides with the form of the active voice but the subject
does NOT denote the doer of the action. The subject denotes a thing which is acted upon.
Let us compare the two meanings of the verb ‘begin’. When it is used in the active voice
it is a transitive verb and it takes a direct object, e.g.: Ted began his speech. The word ‘Ted’ is
the subject of the sentence and it denotes the active doer of the action. The word ‘speech’ is the
direct object of the sentence and it denotes the passive recipient of the action.
When this verb is used in the middle\ medial voice, it cannot take any object, e.g.: The
concert began at 19 p.m. The word ‘concert’ is the subject of the sentence but it does NOT
denote the active doer of the action. This word denotes, actually, the object of somebody’s action
and in this aspect this case resembles a case of the usage of the passive voice. Yet, we cannot
consider this usage to be the form of the passive voice because the verb in the passive voice is
an analytical form consisting of be plus the past participle and here we deal with a synthetic form
‘began’.
Besides, a passive voice form must be capable of taking a by-object denoting the doer if
the action. Yet, this is impossible in this case and alike:
* The concert began by a pianist. *The door opened by John, *The book sells well by the
bookshop.
We can make a passive transformation of this sentence: The concert was begun at 19 p.m.
If we compare this sentence with the sentence ‘The concert began at 19 p.m.’ we see that in both
cases the subject denotes an object of somebody’s action. What differentiates these sentences is
the form of the verbal predicate.
The same can be said about other cases, such as:
1) The maid opened the door (active voice). The door opened and I entered (middle\ medial
voice). The door was opened by an elderly lady (passive voice).
2) This store sells books (active voice). The book sells well (middle\ medial voice). Such books
are sold everywhere (passive voice).
3) I read this book in the fifth form (active voice). The book reads like a detective story (middle\
medial voice). Such books are read in the fifth form (passive voice).
4) I will apply this sum of money to your own use (active voice). The suggested procedure will
hardly apply to all the instances (middle\ medial voice). Such rules are usually applied in such
cases (passive voice).
5) None of my classmates smokes cigarettes (active voice). These cigarettes smoke easily
(middle\ medial voice). Such cigarettes are smoked only by women (passive voice).
6) Eat this loin chop (active voice). Perhaps the loin chop will eat better than it looks (middle\
medial voice). The loin chops have been eaten quickly (passive voice).
The REFLEXIVE voice is expressed in such sentences as John dressed; He washed and
shaved; My son is preparing for the examination. In form, such verbal predicates coincide with
verbs in the active voice. But there is a difference between such sentences and sentences with a
verbal predicate in the active voice. Let us compare two sentences:
(1) She dressed her twin daughters differently (active voice).
(2) She dressed and went out (reflexive voice).
In the first sentence the verbal form ‘dressed’ expresses the meaning of the active voice.
In the second sentence the verbal form ‘dressed’ expresses the meaning of the reflexive voice.
When the active voice is expressed, the subject and the object of the sentence denote
different persons.
The REFLEXIVE voice is expressed in such sentences as John dressed; He washed and
shaved; My son is preparing for the examination. In form, such verbal predicates coincide with
verbs in the active voice. But there is a difference between such sentences and sentences with a
verbal predicate in the active voice. Let us compare two sentences:
(1) She dressed her twin daughters differently (active voice).
(2) She dressed and went out (reflexive voice).
In the first sentence the verbal form ‘dressed’ expresses the meaning of the active voice.
In the second sentence the verbal form ‘dressed’ expresses the meaning of the reflexive voice.
When the active voice is expressed, the subject and the object of the sentence denote
different persons.
When the reflexive voice is expressed, the subject and the object of the sentence denote
the same person. The action is not passed from the subject to any outer object, the subject of the
action is also its object. This is proved by the fact that we can insert in such sentences a reflexive
pronoun (myself, yourself, herself, himself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves): She
dressed and went out. → She dressed herself and went out.
This “reflexive” meaning is expressed by such verbs which are capable of taking a
reflexive pronoun, like oneself, myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves,
themselves. These pronouns, when used, make the expression of the “reflexive” meaning
evident, e.g.: I dressed myself; He washed himself; He shaved herself; My son is preparing
himself for the examination. The reflexive pronoun has the same referent as the subject. That is
why such cases are not embraced by the traditional definition of the active voice: here, there is
no action issuing from the doer and passing onto an external object: the action passes onto the
doer himself/ herself.
The RECIPROCAL voice is expressed in such sentences as They kissed; John and Bill
met in the park; Nelly and Fred divorced two years ago; My sons are constantly fighting! Are
Phil and Glen quarrelling again over their toy cruiser? When two people get married or marry,
they legally become husband and wife in a special ceremony (‘get married’ is less formal and
more commonly used than ‘marry’).
The forms of the active voice and the reciprocal voice coincide. But there is a difference
between sentences with an active verbal predicate and the reciprocal verbal predicate. Let us
compare two sentences:
(1) John met Bill in the park (active voice).
(2) John and Bill met in the park (reciprocal voice).
When the active voice is expressed, the subject (John) and the object (Bill) of the sentence
denote different persons. When the reciprocal voice is expressed, the subject of the sentence
(John and Bill) denotes simultaneously the doer of the action and its object. Here we see likeness
with the reflexive voice. But there is also difference.
This difference lies in the fact that the subject of the sentences with the reciprocal voice
denotes a group consisting of two or more persons and each member of this group acts NOT
upon himself/ herself but upon another/ the other member(s) of this group. So, we can say that
these actions are performed by the people reciprocally: each person does something to another/
the other person and another/ the other person does the same thing to the first one. For example,
when we people kiss, they do it simultaneously to each other. The same can be said about
meeting, hugging, embracing, fighting, quarrelling, divorcing, marrying. This issue can be
proved by adding a reciprocal pronoun, such as one another or each other:
John and Bill met in the park. → John and Bill met each other in the park.
They kissed. → They kissed one another.
They kissed does not mean that a person kissed himself/ herself, as in the case of the
reflexive voice. It is proved by the inability of the verb to take a reflexive pronoun, e.g.: *They
kissed themselves. The reciprocal meaning of this voice is proved by the verb’s ability to take a
reciprocal pronoun each other or one another, e.g.: They kissed each other; John and Bill met
each other; Nelly and Fred divorced each other two years ago; Are Phil and Glen quarrelling
with each other again over their toy cruiser?
English scientific grammar elaborated the problem of voice more profoundly and with
greater objectivity than English prescriptive grammar, which condemned some peculiarly
English passive constructions as wrong and illogical. The vast majority of the authors of English
scientific grammars recognize only two voices in English: the active and the passive voice.
Non-finites verbal forms (verbids) express the functional distinctions of the passive, e.g.:
This is an event never to be forgotten (the passive infinitive); After being wrongly delivered, the
letter found its addressee at last (the passive gerund); The enemy batteries having been put out of
action, our troops continued to push on the offensive (the passive present participle).
М.Y. Blokh believes that in colloquial speech the role of the passive auxiliary can
occasionally be performed by the verb get and become. English scientific grammar treats forms
with such auxiliaries as to keep, to get, to become (to get punished, to become destroyed) as a
new actional passive. Russian linguists refer such usages to a variety of the compound nominal
predicate with the link-verb expressing the idea of becoming. Structural grammarians treat the
forms of the passive voice in the same way as all the other analytical forms of the verb, i.e. as
verb-phrases.
Another problem posed by the category of voice is the discrimination between the cases
of homonymy of the simple predicate in the passive voice and the compound nominal predicate
with the link-verb be, like, for example, The desks are painted. - The desks are painted every
summer. There are three points of view on the nature of the combination ‘be + past participle’.
According to the FIRST approach the combination ‘be + past participle’ should be always
considered to be a free word combination. In such a case this combination is never regarded as
an analytical form of ONE word – a simple verbal predicate and grammarians see no difference
between such collocations as ‘am invited’ and ‘am clever’, ‘was killed’ and ‘was old’.
According to the SECOND approach the combination ‘be + past participle’ must always
be considered an analytical verbal form expressing the meaning of the passive voice.
According to the THIRD approach the combination ‘be + past participle’ can be of two
types:
- either an analytical verbal form expressing the meaning of the passive voice;
- or a free word combination.
If the construction ‘be + participle II’ expresses an action, it is referred to a class of
simple predicates in the passive voice. If the construction ‘be + participle II’ expresses a state, it
is referred to a class of compound nominal predicates.
Those combinations which express the meaning of a state are considered to be free word
combinations. In this case a sentence renders the idea of a result of some past action. The
dynamic meaning of action is not felt vividly. For example: The walls are painted light beige
here. The window is broken. I am married. We are divorced. The syntactical function of these
combinations is that of the compound verbal predicate. The verb ‘be’ is a link-verb. The past
participle is the predicative.
Those combinations which express the meaning of a process, an action are considered to
be analytical verbal forms expressing the meaning of the passive voice. Such sentences contain
adverbial modifiers of time, or an indication of the doer of the action, or a verb in the forms of
the continuous or perfect. For example: The desks are being painted now. The panel's report was
submitted to a parliamentary committee. The computer will be repaired by our best specialist.
The pizza has been delivered very quickly.
The idea of process may disappear completely, so that the nominal part ceases being a
participle and becomes an adjective, e.g.: You are mistaken. The word mistaken is participle II,
homonymous to the adjective mistaken, when the idea of action, progress is expressed, e.g.: I
was often mistaken for my friend Otto, though I never could tell why.
Context plays the major role in showing the categorial status of the predicate. For
example, the context, which includes a by-phrase denoting the doer, reveals the idea of process
and thus the predicate is passive, e.g.:
The door was immediately closed by the butler and I heard a soft clicking of the lock.
Closed is the past participle here.
The following context brings forward the idea of state and closed is an adjective here, it is
the nominal part of the compound nominal predicate: The door on the left was closed, and the
door on the right was open. The Russian linguist V.Y. Plotkin points to the difficulty which
characterizes the distinction between the two homonymous constructions: those of the simple
predicate in the passive voice and the compound nominal predicate. He writes that there is no
clear-cut procedure to do it. So, V.Y. Plotkin sees no sense in accepting this kind of homonymy
at all. He suggests that the meaning of state should be understood in a broad sense. Traditionally
the meaning of state is interpreted as the resultative state, i.e. the state which has come into being
as a result of some action. The broadened understanding suggested by V.Y. Plotkin embraces
NOT ONLY the resultative state, e.g.: She was offended, but also the state in which the object is
when it is being acted upon, e.g.: She felt she was being watched.
According to V.Y. Plotkin, it is wrong to see any difference between the sentences
Dinner is served and Dinner is being served as far as the voice is concerned. Traditionally,
grammarians consider that the first sentence describes the state, in which the dinner is after a
certain action has been fulfilled, and the second sentence describes the action aimed at the
dinner. V.Y. Plotkin believes that BOTH sentences describe STATES. The first sentence
describes the state in which the dinner is after the action of serving and the second sentence
describes the state in which the dinner is during the action of serving.
The conclusion which V.Y. Plotkin makes is that the construction ‘be + participle II’
always expresses the meaning of state. This state can be of two varieties: static and dynamic. The
“static state” is expressed when the context reveals the idea of the result of the previously
fulfilled action. The “dynamic state” is expressed when the context reveals the idea of the result
of the action which is being fulfilled at the described moment.
V.Y. Plotkin does not reject the idea of action expressed by the constructions ‘be +
participle II’. He admits that action is expressed in certain contexts, but he stresses the point that
the idea of action is of secondary importance and of marginal and optional character. The
meaning of action is either expressed or not. The meaning of state is expressed in all cases.
When action is expressed, it is added, as an optional meaning, to the principal meaning of state.
The meaning of action/ process acts as the background for the principal meaning of state. The
meaning of action/ process does not contradict the meaning of state.
V.Y. Plotkin believes that it is unreasonable to accept the homonymy of the constructions
‘be + participle II’. According to him, grammarians must either consider all the constructions
‘be + participle II’ to be analytical forms of the passive voice, or they must consider all the
constructions ‘be + participle II’ to be free word-combinations having the status of the
compound nominal predicate.
V.Y. Plotkin stands for the second option. He is against considering the meaning of state
to be the meanings of a verbal category, because, according to him, the idea of state is hardly
related with the verb, its principal meaning being action. V.Y. Plotkin stands for considering the
construction ‘be + participle II’ to be the compound nominal predicate in all cases.
Grammarians believe that the meanings of morphological categories must be expressed
morphologically. The treatment of the constructions ‘be + participle II’ as compound nominal
predicates, that is, as wordcombinations, means that the meaning of state is expressed
syntactically, not morphologically. With the disappearance of the form the category also
disappears. As the passive meaning turns out to be expressed syntactically, the passive voice
appears to be non-existent because it has no form of its expression. As the passive voice appears
to be non-existent, the whole category of voice turns out to be non-existent, because a
morphological category exists only if it is represented minimum by two forms, opposed to each
other.
V.Y. Plotkin revises the grammatical nature of the the past participle. He stresses the fact
that participle II does not denote action: it denotes the object’s state which results after some
action has been fulfilled. This action usually precedes the state, e.g.: a broken cup, a closed door.
The action may also be simultaneous with the state, e.g.: a man loved and respected. The
modified noun usually designates the recipient of the action (a broken cup, a closed door, a man
loved and respected). Still, the headword may also denote the doer of the action, e.g.: an escaped
prisoner.
V.Y. Plotkin believes that the meanings of priority and passivity, which are traditionally
ascribed to the past participle, are not its invariant meanings. These meanings are the result of
the interaction of the invariant meaning of participle II, i.e. the meaning of state, and the
lexicogrammatical characteristics of the particular verb, such as transitivity/ intransitivity,
terminativeness/ non-terminativeness.
V.Y. Plotkin does not consider the past participle to be a verbal form, because it has lost
its meaning of action. He refers such forms to adjectives because the meaning of state, expressed
by the past participle, is semantically close to the basic meaning of the adjective, that is, to the
meaning of quality. The past participle and the adjective are close not only semantically, that is,
in meaning; they are also close in function: they act as attributes, both prepositive (the nice vase
– the broken vase), postpositive (the trees dark against the blue sky – the trees fallen down by the
violent storm) and predicative (What we saw was terrible. - What we saw was described in our
reports).
V.Y. Plotkin gives additional arguments to prove that the past participles are adjectives.
Firstly, just like adjectives, participle II can serve as a basis for building adverbs, e.g.,
unexpectedly, fixedly.
Secondly, the suffixes of the past participle, like –en, -ed, have always been the suffixes
of adjectives, cf. taken – wooden, written – silken, named – talented, called – pointed.
Thirdly, not all verbs have such past participles which can act as attributes, only transitive
verbs have such forms, for example, we can say the man seen by me in the garden, but we can’t
say *the man looked at by us; *the train come to the station; *children swum to the shore; *the
factors depended upon, *boys run quickly, etc. According to V.Y. Plotkin, this fact is also of
importance: regular verbal forms are supposed to be taken by the majority of verbs, the exclusion
can be made only for modal verbs.
Fourthly, unlike participles I, participles II are practically unable to take the syntactical
position of the adverbial modifier. The last statement seems doubtful: participle II is used in the
syntactical function of the adverbial modifier, e.g.: Broken into pieces, the vase lay at my feet.
Reflexive pronouns have the categories of person, number, and gender in the third person
singular.
1St person 2nd person 3rd person
singular: myself yourself himself, herself, itself
plural: ourselves yourselves themselves
2. Reflexive pronouns refer to the subject of the sentence in which they are used, indicating that
the action performed by the doer passes back to him or is associated with him. In the sentence
they are usually used as direct objects.
In that moment of emotion he betrayed the Forsyte in him—forgot himself, his interests, his
property—was capable of almost anything... (Galsworthy) (object)
Reflexive pronouns may be used as predicatives.
When she came back she was herself again. (Hardy) (predicative)
Reflexive pronouns preceded by a preposition may be used as indirect prepositional objects, as
attributes and as adverbial modifiers.
He could not see that it would be better to make her feel that she was competing with herself...
(Dreiser) (prepositional indirect object)
“I fancied you looked a little downcast when you came in,” she ventured to observe, anxious to
keep away from the subject of herself. (Hardy) (attribute)
If June did not like this, she could have an allowance and live by herself. (Galsworthy)
(adverbial modifier of manner)
Reflexive pronouns may be used to form the reflexive voice (in this case reflexive pronouns are
structural words):
Undressing again, she washed herself intensively... (Galsworthy)
And then I dressed myself and came away to find you. (Hardy)
Sometimes reflexive pronouns are used emphatically:
Moreover, Soames himself disliked the thought of that. (Galsworthy)
She was never idle it seemed to him, and he envied her now that he himself was idle nearly all
his time. (Galsworthy)
The reciprocal voice, its resemblance to the active voice and its difference from the active voice.
Nelly and Christopher divorced two years ago. The friends will be meeting tomorrow. These
sentences can be used with reciprocal pronouns (EACH OTHER; ONE ANOTHER). The
direction of the action in these examples is specific, it differs from that of the ACTIVE VOICE.
In fact the action is performed by the subjects on one another. Or, the action goes on between the
elements of the subject. And this kind of verbal meaning is called reciprocal. It can be rendered
explicitly or implicitly. The grammarians who support the existence of the RECIPROCAL
VOICE treat reciprocal pronouns as voice-auxiliaries. However, most grammarians do not
recognize reciprocal voice-forms as grammatical. Блох says: “They are phrasal derivatives and
can be interpreted syntactical-lexical. There are four main directions of an action: from the
subject, to the subject, from the subject and back to it, between the elements of the subject.
Reciprocal pronouns are the group-pronouns each other and one another. They express
mutual action or relation. The subject to which they refer must always be in the plural.
“I didn’t really know him,” he thought, “and he didn’t know me; but we loved each
other.” (Galsworthy)
We haven’t set eyes on one another for years. (Priestley)
Each other generally implies only two, one another two or more than two persons:
He had never heard his father or his mother speak in an angry voice, either to each
other, himself, or anybody else. (Galsworth’y) Seated in a row close to one another were three
ladies — Aunts Ann, Hester (the two Forsyte maids), and Julie (short for Julia)... (Galsworthy)
It must be mentioned that this distinction is not always strictly observed: I should have
been surprised if those two could have thought very highly of one another. (Dickens)
2. Reciprocal pronouns have two case forms.
Girls banged into each other and stamped on each other’s feet. (Mansfield)
The common case of reciprocal pronouns is used as an object.
The men were not grave and dignified. They lost their tempers easily and called one
another names... (London)
Elizabeth and George talked and found each other delightful. (Aldington)
The genitive case of reciprocal pronouns may be used as an attribute. At first it struck me
that I might live by selling my works to the ten per cent who were like myself; but a moment’s
reflection showed me that these must all be as penniless as I, and that we could not live by, so to
speak, taking in one another’s washing. (Shaw)
Not until moon and stars faded away and streaks of daylight began to appear, did Meitje
Brinker and Hans look hopelessly into each other’s face. (Dodge)
Reciprocal pronouns preceded by a preposition are used as a prepositional indirect object:
They look at one another for a moment. (Dickens)
...in silence they stared at each other. (Saxton)
CARD 11
The forms of degrees of adjectives. The three-member (ternary) gradual opposition. The
meaning of restricted superiority. The meaning of unrestricted superiority. The suppletive
forms of comparison. The synthetic forms of comparison. The analytical forms of
comparison. М.Я. Блох’s point of view on the number of degrees of comparison: the
positive degree, the comparative degree, the superlative degree plus two forms of the
reverse comparison.
Traditionally, the category of the degrees of comparison of adjectives is defined as the category
expressing the quantitative characteristics of the quality of a nounal referent, i.e. it gives a
relative evaluation of the quantity of quality.
“Relative” means that the quantity is not measured directly but is indicated:
- in relation to the quality of another referent (This flat is larger than mine)
- or in relation to the quality of the same referent but at an another stage of its existence
(Now you are much more
tolerant than you used to be; I was younger then; Your salary will be much larger).
Traditionally THREE forms of degrees of comparison are distinguished:
1)the form of the POSITIVE degree
2)the form of the COMPARATIVE degree
3)the form of the SUPERLATIVE degree.
The three forms like long – longer – longest make up a TERNARY GRADUAL
OPPOSITION.
This opposition is called ‘ternary’ because this set of forms includes three members.
This opposition is called ‘gradual’ because the COMPARATIVE and SUPERLATIVE forms
express the GRADUAL INCREASE in the quantity of the quality. For example, the form ‘short’
denotes the INITIAL quantity of shortness. The form ‘shorter’ shows that the quantity \ amount
of shortness is bigger in the second case. Now let us compare ‘the shorter road’ and ‘the shortest
road’. The form ‘shortest’ shows that the quantity \ amount of shortness is greater in the second
case. The form ‘shortest’ designated the greatest amount of the quality ‘shortness’.
For example, the form ‘difficult’ denotes the INITIAL quantity of difficulty. The form ‘more
difficult’ denotes a greater quantity of difficulty. The form ‘most difficult’ denotes the greatest
quantity of difficulty.
According to М.Я. Блох:
the form of the comparative degree expresses the grammatical meaning of RESTRICTED
SUPERIORITY,
the form of the superlative degree expresses the grammatical meaning of UNRESTRICTED
SUPERIORITY.
The positive degree (long) is the basic form of the adjective. It is not marked, i.e. it is the
unmarked member of the
opposition. The positive degree indicates that no comparison is implied and this meaning is
expressed by a zero morpheme.
The comparative and the superlative degrees are the marked members of the opposition.
The comparative degree has the feature of restricted superiority (it indicates that the quantity of
one quality is superior to the quantity of the other: comparison is done only between two
objects).
The superlative degree has the feature of unrestricted superiority (it indicates that the quantity of
the quality of one object is superior to the quantity of the qualities of all the other objects:
comparison is done between all the objects known to the speaker).
The meaning of unrestricted superiority is the general meaning of the superlative degree. In
practice, this type of superiority is often expressed not absolutely but within a limited number of
referents, e.g. Johnny was the strongest boy in the company. So, the superiority appears to be
unrestricted only within the given set of objects (referents).
The superlative degree form includes the definite article. According to Б.А. Ильиш, the has
become an integral part of the superlative form and we should not consider the article belonging
to the modified noun. Б.А. Ильиш believes that cases when the is joined to the superlative form
of an adverb prove his point of view, because we cannot speak of any noun in such cases as
adverbs do not combine with nouns, e.g.: The world talks of them the most.
Some linguists treat the issue of the number of the degrees of comparison as problematic. They
believe that the basic form of the adjective does not express any comparison by itself and
therefore should be excluded from the category.
But in the oppositional interpretation of grammatical categories this fact does not lead to the
exclusion of the form. Such a form is considered to be unmarked. It has NO comparison suffix or
comparison auxiliary. Like the other, marked, members of the opposition, it expresses the
categorial meaning (in this case, it is the general meaning of comparison) but this expression is
done through the meaningful absence of the grammatical morpheme, i.e. through the zero
morpheme.
The indication of no comparison can be considered one of the meanings of the category of
comparison. The non-expression of superiority by the basic form is understood in the
oppositional presentation of comparison as a pre-requisite for the expression of the category as
such. That the basic form as the positive degree of comparison does express this categorial
meaning of comparison is clearly shown by its uses in comparative syntactic constructions of
equality, e.g.: The remark was as bitter as could be. The Rockies are not as high as the
Caucasus. Comparison is expressed here. In can be proved by periphrasis: That was the bitterest
remark I have ever heard from the man; The Caucasus is higher than the Rockies.
The comparative and the superlative degrees are built up:
- synthetically
- analytically (the analytical way of formation is recognized not by all grammarians, see
below)
- in the suppletive way.
SUPPLETIVE forms are the forms of one word which are built from different roots. Suppletive
way of formation is presented by such opposemes as:
good – better – best,
bad – worse – worst,
much/ many – more – most,
little – less – least.
The SYNTHETICAL way of formation is the formation by affixation \ suffixation (long-er,
long-est).
Monosyllabic adjectives commonly build up the degrees of comparison with the help of suffixes,
that is, synthetically, e.g.: dark – darker – the darkest.
Disyllabic adjectives build up the degrees of comparison either synthetically or
analytically.
The traditional rule states that if the stress falls on the second syllable, the adjectives form the
degrees of comparison with the help of the suffixes, e.g.: distinct – distincter – the distinctest.
The same concerns disyllabic adjectives ending in:
–er (clever- clever – the cleverest),
-y (happy – happier – the happiest),
-le (simple – simpler – the simplest),
-ow (narrow – narrower – the narrowest).
Other types of disyllabic adjectives and the adjectives containing more than two syllables build
up forms of comparison analytically (difficult – more difficult – the most difficult).
Still, nowadays the English adjectives tend to build up forms of comparison in the analytical way
and the increasing number of adjectives switch on to this type of formation.
Such are the one-syllable adjectives ending in two consonants: right, wrong, just, lax, real (right
– more right – the most right; wrong – more wrong – the most wrong; real - more real – the most
real). (Still, we say bright – brighter – the brightest).
According to Ch. Barber, the analytical way of formation is now characteristic of the degrees of
comparison of such adjectives as cloudy, fussy, quiet, cruel, simple, subtle, clever, profound,
pleasant.
Otto Jespersen writes that more/most are used to form the degrees of comparison of one- and
two-syllable adjectives if the comparison is done between the states of one and same person or
object, e.g.: His voice grew more gentle, more low; His mother was more kind than intelligent.
М.Я. Блох remarks that the analytical forms of comparison, as different from the synthetical
forms, are also used to express emphasis, e.g.: The audience became more and more noisy.
М.Я. Блох expands the number of the degrees of comparison. He considers less/ leastcombinations to be categorial analytical forms expressing the “NEGATIVE DEGREES OF
COMPARISON”, or “REVERSE COMPARISON”.
So, in М.Я. Блох‘s presentation, the category of degrees of comparison includes not three but
five different forms, which make up the two series – direct and reverse.
Б.С. Хаймович and Б.И. Роговская are of the opinion that the similarity between the more/
most–combinations and the less/ least-–combinations is superficial. They believe that the units
less and least do not possess such characteristics as more and most. More and most are in
complementary distribution with the bound morphemes –er and –est, more being the allomorph
of –er and most being the allomorph of –est, but there are no bound grammatical morphemes
whose grammatical meaning is the same as that of less and least and which might be considered
the allomorphs of less and least.
J. McH. Sinclair expands the system of the direct and reverse degrees of comparison adding to it
the TEMPERING degree (умеренная степень) which is expressed when an adjective is
preceded by very, really, moderately, quite, rather, e.g.: a very beautiful view; moderately good
paintings; her rather nice shoes. But these meanings are expressed through word-combinations
and cannot be considered to be meanings of forms of comparison.
CARD 12
The analytical forms of comparison of adjectives: the points of view for and against the
acceptance of analytical forms of comparison of adjectives. The treatment of the elements
more and most as words (adverbs). The treatment of the elements more and most as
morphs. The treatment of the elements more and –er as allomorphs. The treatments of the
elements most and –est as allomorphs. М.Я. Блох’s point of view on the number of degrees
of comparison: the positive degree, the comparative degree, the superlative degree plus two
forms of the reverse comparison. The arguments against the acceptance of the forms of the
reverse comparison (there are no morphs with the same meaning with which ‘less’ and
‘least’ might be in complementary distribution).
Disyllabic adjectives build up the degrees of comparison either synthetically or
analytically.
The traditional rule states that if the stress falls on the second syllable, the adjectives form
the degrees of comparison with the help of the suffixes, e.g.: distinct – distincter – the distinctest.
The same concerns disyllabic adjectives ending in:
–er (clever- clever – the cleverest),
-y (happy – happier – the happiest),
-le (simple – simpler – the simplest),
-ow (narrow – narrower – the narrowest).
Other types of disyllabic adjectives and the adjectives containing more than two syllables
build up forms of comparison analytically (difficult – more difficult – the most difficult).
Still, nowadays the English adjectives tend to build up forms of comparison in the
analytical way and the increasing number of adjectives switch on to this type of formation.
Such are the one-syllable adjectives ending in two consonants: right, wrong, just, lax,
real (right – more right – the most right; wrong – more wrong – the most wrong; real - more
real – the most real). (Still, we say bright – brighter – the brightest).
According to Ch. Barber, the analytical way of formation is now characteristic of the
degrees of comparison of such adjectives as cloudy, fussy, quiet, cruel, simple, subtle, clever,
profound, pleasant.
Otto Jespersen writes that more/most are used to form the degrees of comparison of oneand two-syllable adjectives if the comparison is done between the states of one and same person
or object, e.g.: His voice grew more gentle, more low; His mother was more kind than intelligent.
М.Я. Блох remarks that the analytical forms of comparison, as different from the
synthetical forms, are also used to express emphasis, e.g.: The audience became more and more
noisy.
Some grammarians treat forms like more beautiful and (the) most beautiful not as
analytical forms, but as free syntactical combinations.
The treatment of the elements more and most as words (adverbs)
If we consider forms like more beautiful and (the) most beautiful as FREE WORDCOMBINATIONS, the elements more and most are WORDS, that is ADVERBS. In this case
there is no syntactical difference between:
- more beautiful and absolutely beautiful,
- most difficult and rather difficult.
In this case the units more and most, like other notional words, express both the
LEXICAL and GRAMMATICAL
meanings.
In such a case grammarians compare the usages of ‘more \ most + adjective’ with the
usages of ‘more \ most + noun’. They say that in both cases the elements more and most must be
considered to be WORDS because in all cases more and most express the same LEXICAL
meaning.
For example: more people and more difficult. Grammarians of this trend consider both
sequences to be FREE WORD-COMBINATIONS because in both cases the element has its own
lexical meaning and expresses the meaning of the ‘greater quantity’:
- more people: ‘more’ expresses the greater number of people;
- more difficult: ‘more’ expresses the greater amount of difficulty.
Another example: most people and most difficult. Some grammarians consider both
sequences to be FREE WORD-COMBINATIONS because in both cases the element most has its
own lexical meaning and expresses the meaning of the ‘greatest quantity’:
- most people: ‘more’ expresses the greatest number of people;
- most difficult: ‘more’ expresses the greatest amount of difficulty.
So, the arguments are, firstly, that the words more and most have the same meaning in
combinations with adjectives (more difficult, the most difficult) as they have in combinations
with nouns (more time, most people), which nobody considers to be analytical.
Secondly, the most + adjective can take the indefinite article, e.g.: He is a most unusual
person.
Thirdly, the combinations ‘more/ most + adjective’ are semantically analogous to
combinations of less/ least with the adjective. The combinations with less/ least are generally
considered to be free word-combinations. That is why the combinations with more/ most are also
considered to be free word-combinations.
If the more/ most – combinations are considered to be phrases, it means that both
components of the phrase are words and have both lexical and grammatical meanings.
Thus, in more difficult the component more has:
the lexical meaning of relatively larger quantity (the meaning of restricted
superiority) and
- the grammatical meaning of the adverb.
In most difficult the component most has:
- the lexical meaning of the largest quantity (the meaning of unrestricted superiority) and
- the grammatical meaning of the adverb.
The component difficult has:
- the lexical meaning of ‘being hard to accomplish’ and
- the grammatical meaning of the adjective.
The treatment of the elements more and most as morphs.
If we consider forms like more beautiful and (the) most beautiful as ANALYTICAL
FORMS, the elements more and most are NOT WORDS, but words’ COMPONENTS, that is
morphs \ morphemes. They are also called word-morphemes. In such a case the elements
more and most express no lexical meaning – only the grammatical one:
- more expresses the grammatical meaning of restricted superiority;
- most expresses the grammatical meaning of unrestricted superiority
Not all grammarians consider the more/ most – combinations to be free phrases. Such
grammarians (for example, М.Я. Блох, Б.С. Хаймович and Б.И. Роговская and others) come to
the conclusion that the combinations of adjectives with more and most are not phrases but the
ANALYTICAL FORMS of the adjectives. In this case, more and most are not words but free
grammatical morphemes \ word-morphemes which are devoid of the lexical meaning but
express their grammatical meanings:
- more expresses a relatively larger degree of the quantity of the property;
- most expresses the utmost \ greatest \ highest degree of the quantity of the property.
The combinations of adjectives with more or most produce not phrases but forms of the
same adjectives – analytical forms.
When combinations like more beautiful, most beautiful are considered to be analytical
forms, the function of most and more is the same as the function of the bound morphemes –er
and -est. So:
- the units more and –er are allomorphs of the same grammatical morpheme the meaning
of which is ‘restricted superiority’;
- the units most and –est are allomorphs of the same grammatical morpheme the meaning
of which is ‘unrestricted superiority’.
Allomorphs are variants of the same morpheme which are characterised by
complimentary distribution. It means
that allomorphs:
- have different forms (consist of different phonemes);
- express the same meaning;
- cannot replace each other in the identical environment.
The treatment of the elements more and –er as allomorphs.
Let us compare the elements more and –er. They can be considered the allomorphs of the
same morpheme because:
- they have different forms (consist of different phonemes);
- express the same meaning of restricted superiority;
- cannot replace each other in the identical environment: for example, we cannot remove
‘more’ and say *difficulter instead of ‘more difficult’.
The conclusion is as follows: the element –er is universally considered to be a bound
morpheme. As the element ‘more’ appears to be in complementary distribution with the bound
morpheme, it must be also considered to be a morpheme. So, ‘more’ must be considered a free
grammatical morpheme and the combination of this free grammatical morpheme with an
adjective must be considered an analytical form of the adjective.
The treatments of the elements most and –est as allomorphs.
Now let us compare the elements most and –est. They can also be considered the
allomorphs of the same morpheme because:
- they have different forms (consist of different phonemes);
- express the same meaning of unrestricted superiority;
- cannot replace each other in the identical environment: for example, we cannot remove
‘most’ and say *difficultest instead of ‘most difficult’.
We come to the same conclusion: the element –est is a bound morpheme. As the element
‘most’ appears to be in complementary distribution with the bound morpheme, it must be
considered to be a morpheme. So, ‘most’ is a free grammatical morpheme and the combination
of this free grammatical morpheme with an adjective is an analytical form of the adjective.
This opinion is shared, for example, by Б.С. Хаймович and Б.И. Роговская. To their
mind, the grammatical meaning and function of more is identical with those of the grammatical
bound morpheme –er, the only difference being that –er is bound and more is free, e.g.: whiter –
more dangerous. Both –er and more express the meaning ‘of a higher degree’.
The same can be said about the bound morpheme –est and the element most, which is
considered by Б.С. Хаймович and Б.И. Роговская to be a word-morpheme, e.g.: the whitest –
the most dangerous. Both –est and most express the meaning ‘of the highest degree’, ‘the highest
amount of property’.
The distributions of –er and more, of –est and most are complementary. It means that –er,
as a rule, cannot be found in the distribution of more, and –est has the distribution in which most
is not found.
М.Я. Блох’s point of view on the number of degrees of comparison: the positive
degree, the comparative degree, the superlative degree plus two forms of the reverse
comparison.
The category of the degrees of comparison of adjectives is the system of opposemes (like
long – longer – longest) showing quantitative distinctions of qualities. The form like long is the
positive degree, longer is the comparative degree, longest is the superlative degree.
The three forms like long – longer – longest make up a TERNARY GRADUAL
OPPOSITION.
This opposition is called ‘ternary’ because this set of forms includes three members.
This opposition is called ‘gradual’ because the comparative and superlative forms show
the gradual increase in the amount of the property designated by the adjective. For example, let
us compare ‘the short road’ and ‘the shorter road’. The form ‘shorter’ shows that the quantity \
amount of shortness is bigger in the second case.
Now let us compare ‘the shorter road’ and ‘the shortest road’. The form ‘shortest’ shows
that the quantity \ amount of shortness is greater in the second case. The form ‘shortest’
designated the greatest amount of the quality ‘shortness’.
According to М.Я. Блох:
- the form of the comparative degree expresses the grammatical meaning of
RESTRICTED SUPERIORITY,
- the form of the superlative degree expresses the grammatical meaning of
UNRESTRICTED SUPERIORITY.
The positive degree (long) is the basic form of the adjective. It is not marked, i.e. it is the
unmarked member of the opposition. The positive degree indicates that no comparison is
implied and this meaning is expressed by a zero morpheme.
The comparative and the superlative degrees are the marked members of the opposition.
The comparative degree has the feature of restricted superiority (it indicates that the
quantity of one quality is superior to the quantity of the other: comparison is done only between
two objects).
The superlative degree has the feature of unrestricted superiority (it indicates that
the quantity of the quality of one object is superior to the quantity of the qualities of all the other
objects: comparison is done between all the objects known to the speaker).
The meaning of unrestricted superiority is the general meaning of the superlative
degree. In practice, this type of superiority is often expressed not absolutely but within a limited
number of referents, e.g. Johnny was the strongest boy in the company. So, the superiority
appears to be unrestricted only within the given set of objects (referents).
The comparative and the superlative degrees are built up:
- synthetically
- analytically (the analytical way of formation is recognized not by all grammarians, see
below)
- in the suppletive way.
SUPPLETIVE forms are the forms of one word which are built from different roots.
Suppletive way of formation is presented by such opposemes as:
good – better – best,
bad – worse – worst,
much/ many – more – most,
little – less – least.
М.Я. Блох expands the number of the degrees of comparison. He considers less/ leastcombinations to be categorial analytical forms expressing the “NEGATIVE DEGREES OF
COMPARISON”, or “REVERSE COMPARISON”. So, in М.Я. Блох‘s presentation, the
category of degrees of comparison includes not three but five different forms, which make up the
two series – direct and reverse.
Let us now consider the elements less and least. As it was mentioned before, we cannot
find any morphs \ morphemes which are in complementary distribution with these elements. It
means that there are no morphs capable of supporting the morphemic status of less and least.
This why less and least are independent WORDS and together with adjectives they make up
FREE WORD-COMBINATIONS.
Б.С. Хаймович and Б.И. Роговская are of the opinion that the similarity between the
more/ most–combinations and the less/ least-–combinations is superficial. They believe that the
units less and least do not possess such characteristics as more and most. More and most are in
complementary distribution with the bound morphemes –er and –est, more being the
allomorph of –er and most being the allomorph of –est, but there are no bound grammatical
morphemes whose grammatical meaning is the same as that of less and least and which might be
considered the allomorphs of less and least.
J. McH. Sinclair expands the system of the direct and reverse degrees of comparison
adding to it the TEMPERING degree (умеренная степень) which is expressed when an
adjective is preceded by very, really, moderately, quite, rather, e.g.: a very beautiful view;
moderately good paintings; her rather nice shoes. But these meanings are expressed through
word-combinations and cannot be considered to be meanings of forms of comparison.
CARD 13
The valency of verbs. The obligatory valency. The optional valency. The omission test as
the method to distinguish between obligatory and optional valency. Complementive and
non-complementive (supplementive) verbs. Monocomplementive and bicomplementive
verbs. Objective and non-objective verbs. Transitive and intransitive verbs. Transitive
verbs mean objective verbs if transitivity is understood in the broad way.
A GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY is a very abstract, very general grammatical meaning
which is expressed by every member of a PART OF SPEECH.
The VERB expresses:
1) the grammatical category of NUMBER
2) the grammatical category of PERSON
3) the grammatical category of TENSE
4) the grammatical category of MOOD
5) the grammatical category of VOICE
6) the grammatical category of DEVELOPMENT
7) the grammatical category of RETROSPECTIVE COORDINATION
The COMBINING POWER of words in relation to other words in syntactically subordinate
positions is called their syntactic "VALENCY”
A valency grammar presents a model of a sentence containing a fundamental element (typically,
the verb) and a number of dependent elements (variously referred to as arguments,
expressions, complements, or valents) whose number and type is determined by the valency
attributed to the verb.
“Realized” valency - the word is actually combined in an utterance with its corresponding
valency partner, i. e. its valency adjunct.
“Unrealized” valency - the word is used without its valency adjunct, the valency conditioning
the position of this adjunct (or "directed" to it) is said to be "not realised".
The SYNTACTIC VALENCY falls into two cardinal types:
- obligatory
- optional.
Obligatiry valency
The OBLIGATORY valency is such as must necessarily be realised for the sake of the
grammatical completion of the syntactic construction.
For instance, the subject and the direct object are OBLIGATORY PARTS of the
sentence, and, from the point of view of sentence structure, they are obligatory valency partners
of the verb.
Consequently, we say that the subjective and the direct objective valencies of the verb
are obligatory.
E.g.: We saw a house in the distance.
This sentence presents a case of a COMPLETE English syntactic construction. If we
eliminate either its subject or object, the remaining part of the construction will be structurally
INCOMPLETE, i.e. it will be structurally "gaping".
Cf.: * We saw in the distance. * Saw a house in the distance.
Optional valency
The OPTIONAL valency is such as is not necessarily realised in grammatically complete
constructions. It depends on the concrete information to be conveyed by the utterance.
Most of the ADVERBIAL MODIFIERS are optional parts of the sentence, so in terms of
valency we say that the adverbial valency of the verb is mostly optional.
For instance, We saw a house (‘in the distance’ - may be freely eliminated without
causing the remainder of the sentence to be structurally incomplete).
LINK-VERBS, although their classical representatives are only half-notional, should also
be included into the general valency characterisation of verbs. This is due to their syntactically
essential position in the sentence. The predicative valency of the link-verbs proper is obligatory.
Cf.: The reporters seemed pleased with the results of the press conference.
That young scapegrace made a good husband, after all.
The OBLIGATORY ADJUNCTS of the verb, with the exception of the subject (whose
connection with the verb cannot be likened to the other valency partners), may be called its
"COMPLEMENTS";
the OPTIONAL ADJUNCTS of the verb, its "SUPPLEMENTS".
Complements and supplements.
М.Y. Blokh suggests naming the obligatory adjuncts of the verbs “complements”. Optional
adjuncts are called “supplements” by him. Thus, there may be: - objective complements and
objective supplements, - predicative complements and predicative supplements, - adverbial
complements and adverbial supplements. For example: - Henry took the money ‒ the object “the
money” is obligatory, it is an objective complement. - We did it for you ‒ the object “for you” is
optional, it is an objective supplement. - The reporters seemed pleased – the predicative
“pleased” is obligatory, it is a predicative complement. - The night came dark and stormy – the
predicative “dark and stormy” is optional, it is a predicative supplement. - Mr. Torrence was
staying in the Astoria Hotel – the adverbial modifier of place “ in the Astoria Hotel” is
obligatory, it is an adverbial complement. - He took the book from the shelf – the adverbial
modifier of place “from the shelf ” is optional, it is an adverbial supplement.
Mono-complementive and bi-complementive verbs.
Objective complementive verbs fall into monocomplementive and bicomplementive verbs.
Monocomplementive verbs take one object. Bicomplementive verbs take two objects.
The monocomplementive objective verbs fall into five subclasses:
a) the first subclass consists of one member – the possession objective verb have; it takes the
direct object normally is not used in passive;
b) the second subclass consists of objective verbs taking direct objects which are used in passive,
e.g.: take, grasp, forget, enjoy, like, etc.;
c) the third subclass consists of objective verbs taking direct objects which are not used in
passive, e.g.: cost, weigh, fail, become, suit.
d) the fourth subclass consists of objective verbs taking prepositional objects which are used in
passive, e.g.: look at, point to, send for, approve of, think about.
e) the fifth subclass consists of objective verbs taking prepositional objects which are not used in
passive, e.g.: belong to, relate to, merge with, confer with, abound in.
The bicomplementive objective verbs also fall into five subclasses.
(1) The first subclass consists of the verbs taking a direct object and an addressee object
(addressee-direct objective verbs):
a) the addressee object may be both prepositional and nonprepositional, e.g.:
give smb smth \give smth to smb, bring smb smth \ bring smth to smb, pay smb smth \ pay smth
to smb, hand smb smth \ hand smth to smb, show smb smth \ show smth to smb;
b) the addressee object may be only prepositional, e.g.:
explain to smb, introduce to smb, mention to smb, say to smb, devote to smb;
(2) the second subclass consists of the verbs taking two direct objects
(double direct objective verbs), e.g.:
teach smb smth, ask smb smth, excuse smb smth, forgive smb smth;
(3) the third subclass consists of the verbs taking two prepositional objects
(double prepositional objective verbs), e.g.:
argue with smb about smth, consult with about smth, cooperate with smb in smth, agree with
smb about smth;
(4) the fourth subclass consists of the verbs taking a prepositional object
and an addressee object (addressee prepositional objective verbs), e.g.:
remind smb of smth, tell smb about smth, appolоgize to smb for smth, write smb of smth, pay
smb for smth;
(5) the fifth subclass consists of the verbs taking an object and an
adverbial modifier (adverbial objective verbs), e.g.:
put smth somewhere,place smth somewhere, lay smth somewhere, bring smth somewhere, send
smth somewhere, keep smth somewhere.
Adverbial complementive verbs include two main subclasses:
(1) the first subclass consists of the verbs taking an adverbial complement
of place or of time, e.g.: be, live, stay, go, ride, arrive;
(2) the second subclass consists of the verbs taking an adverbial
complement of manner, e.g.: act, do, keep, behave, get on.
Objective and non-objective verbs.
If we take into account only the verb’s ability or inability to take
objects, verbs are traditionally divided into:
- objective and non-objective (subjective),
- transitive and intransitive.
The term ‘subjective’ is not a good term because all verbs are subjective: all verbs take subjects
on their left. The term ‘non-objective’ is better: it describes verbs which do not take objects. For
example, the verb rain is non-objective because it does not combine with objects:
- It often rains in autumn.
- He ran about the garden.
- The bird flew away.
Verbs in English are divided into objective verbs that take any complement (direct, indirect or
prepositional), and non-objective verbs, after which neither indirect, direct, nor prepositional
complement is used:
objective:
I saw him yesterday. (прямое дополнение)
I've sent a letter to my friends, (прямое дополнение)
Have you talked to him about it? (предложное дополнение)
non-objective:
Come tomorrow.
I'll go to the library at once and get this book out.
Who's sitting over there?
Verbal objectivity is the ability of the verb to take any object (direct, indirect, prepositional). The
following verbs are objective:
- I like roses.
- Ted is looking for a cheap car.
- It will depend on you.
The bilateral combinability of objective verbs with subject words and object words is not always
realized in speech. For example, the subject word connection is not realized in The sacred white
cat has been stolen. This occurs only in passive voice grammemes (patterns).
In sentences like The train was waiting, He never reads in the morning the object-word
connections are not realized and such cases are treated as the absolute use of objective verb.
Transitive and intransitive verbs.
Grammarians discriminate also between transitive and intransitive verbs. Transitivity is
understood in the ‘broad’ and in the ‘narrow’ senses. Transitivity in the broad sense means the
verb’s ability to take any kind of object: direct, indirect or prepositional. So, if we understand
transitivity in the broad sense we can see no difference between objectivity and transitivity: any
objective verb is transitive.
Transitivity in the narrow means the verb’s ability to take direct objects, like read books, invite
guests, ask questions, ask people. If we understand transitivity in the ‘narrow’ sense, we must
admit that objective verbs, which take both direct, indirect and prepositional objects, are either
transitive (read books, ask questions) or intransitive (speak about animals, speak with people,
look at them, depend on money). Non-objective verbs are only intransitive as they can take no
object (go, run, fly).
Transitive verbs are divided into four subclasses:
(a) The verbs of take-type (carry, replace, love, hate, wash, change, etc.), which combine with
one noun or noun equivalent (NP) and an adverbial, which is optional. For example, She took
the tray (off the table). The electrician replaced the fuse (skillfully);
(b) The verbs of give-type (call, ask, send, bring, buy, sing, write, etc.), which combine with two
nouns or noun-equivalents (NP). The first NP is mostly an animate noun (an indirect object), the
second is usually an inanimate noun (a direct object). For example, Father gave Johnny a toydog; The boy called us a taxi; He bought them a lunch;
(c) The verbs of put-type (place, stand, etc.) which combine with one noun or noun equivalent
and an adverbial, which is obligatory. For example, The woman put the letter in her hand-bag;
The visitor stood his walking-stick in the corner;
(d) The verbs of look at-type (look after, depend on, speak of, listen to, approve of, talk about,
care for, etc.) which combine with one noun or noun equivalent (NP) through a preposition. For
example, The mother looked at her baby (lovingly); The committee approved of the plan
(unanimously); You can’t depend on my watch.